AROG

While the first graph shows the typical ERT, the rest of the graphs work towards the ultimate goal of testing the merits of bunting. In situations where teams bunted, there is historical proof that the teams that used the sac bunt scored more runs that inning then teams that didn't, not just one run, but more total. Also, it points out that you can't use blanket statements to situations in baseball. They average out everything, placing no data to who is coming up, who is pitching, anything situationally. Now, it doesn't mean that you should always bunt. But what it proves is that using ERT for every situation is flawed and cannot be used to empirically state a case for all. I know that you have said that one run game... The truth is, if you are down by three, score one, then score one again, you are down by one. Had you not scored you are still down by three. Baseball is about taking advantage of every situation you have to score, if you just sit back and wait for the long ball or 5 hits in a row, you are the 2000's yankees or you lose. I am not saying you should bunt in all situations, but to say that you should never bunt before the 8th inning or only in one run games is just not good baseball, statistically.

And you give it no credence what so ever? The fan graphs article is correct, there are less rallies as a result of the sac bunt, but the amount of innings scored in are less and fangraphs leaves that out. They refer to any run scored at all.

I read that article before I read the one I posted. Did you read the one I posted? It's quite long so I am assuming not.

The Baseball Analysts: Empirical Analysis of Bunting

The stats don't play the game. The Math also says that there is nothing special about the 9th inning. It is super super clear that you shouldn't put any credence to a closer and that anyone can throw pitches in that inning and the outs will come. I understand them, I do, I wouldn't have a computer as my manager though. This is a game and anything can happen.

The stats don't take everything into account. The way a pitcher pitches with a one run lead is different then when they pitch with a three run lead. Stats can tell you what you want them to tell you. I'm not saying that they are 100% not useful but it would be foolish to play the game 100% by them. I understand the math, I really do, it is just something that we will disagree on, sorry.

The bunting in that situation was just one particular reference to Gardy not promoting a winning attitude. That was my big beef. You can lose but do so playing the game to win. When you're down by 2 or 3 in the middle innings, moving 2 runners to scoring position with your first out is baseball. The only situation you wouldn't do that is with your RBI guys. Just having them swing away? anyone can manage that. We don't need to pay someone to tell people to swing away. I am concerned that Gardy is sending the message that winning the game doesn't matter, just go get your work in. Who cares about situations, just get the work in.

No one rebuilds in a day. I don't have too many issues with the front office. TR has proven in the past that if he can get close to a team he feels is good enough, he will trade or pull in the FA's he needs to put it over the top. My beef is with Gardy. Yesterday is a prime example of not bunting with Dozier to move the runners on first and second over. He refuses to play small ball. That is the roster he has. He disguises it with the "they need to see if they can hit in these situations" bs. You play the game the right way, all the time. It creates the winning attitudes needed to create winning teams. Dougy fresh has it right in Ft. Myers. Winning is contagious. Gardy isn't a winner.

I know this probably isn't popular, but I love Buxton/Sano as much as any of y'all. I would trade Buxton, right now, for Snydergaard. Mets have some good young pitching already and need the help in the outfield. We need pitching desperately and would give us an Ace!

I am a little worried that he wouldn't be able to consistently hit MLB pitchers, but say he drops 100 points in his BA, he will still hit like .275-.300 until he does figure out MLB pitchers, and that with some power. I agree, we don't really have any other internal options, not close anyway. If we could get Abreu and have him in the lineup next year, that puts the rebuild process in fast gear. I think that if we could win him for around 6 years and $55 million he should be a good bet. PS my opinion has been changed, two days ago, I was on the forget about it side, but after really digging into as much about him as I could, he seems like a guy that has enough plate discipline to be a pro.

First, diehardtwinsfan, good stuff, but if the GM's for teams that need a player don't know how Morneau is playing, they don't deserve their jobs. Second, the Twins don't have to eat all of the contract or none of it. Teams like businesses run off of budgets and projections for the year. They have a certain amount that they budgeted to spend on players. Since they budgeted all of Morneau's contract, eating all but a million dollars of it and trading him from prospects that makes much less money is going to earn them a profit of a million dollars. (The prospect goes into a different budget) Third, the tricky thing about waiver deals is that you can only trade for players off the 40 man roster or players like Andrus that have cleared waivers. Where the really tricky part comes into play is those prospects being traded for. If I invested $1 million in a signing bonus, more, or close to that amount, I am not going to trade him. I have too much invested to see him come to fruition, now if he is having a down year and I can recuperate some to all of the signing bonus from the new team and I see it as an opportunity to bail on what could pan out to be a bad investment then I jump at it. In closing, don't get your hopes up on Justin. Although TR has shown the ability to trade players in a fire sale, I don't see them getting rid of Morneau unless they get a really good young player. Believe it or not, Justin is still a draw for ticket prices. Especially since his is hot and has cleared waivers. This may be your last shot to see him play etc, etc. If he doesn't go, then they sell tickets for another month that way.

Completely agree, his rep was built on selling people who weren't old enough to understand any other factors. Money was their only factor and Boras (thank you for the spelling, I didn't feel like looking it up) was great at exploiting/getting that. Did you read his article today for Buster Olney? Maybe that should be it's own forum but I haven't taken the time to figure out how to start one. But his article was pretty good, but I disagreed with him on some major points.

I was going to mention that but I thought I would leave that up to you. It was quite glaring. Interesting to note that Boris was his agent. Boris has a reputation his clients only wanting money and considering nothing else. If money was the only factor would there have to be a reputation like that? I'm sorry, I know you just agreed that there are other factors but I was waiting for this opportunity earlier but it didn't arise.

The article I read on that had a lot more to do with his wife wanting to live there, but articles aren't always the truth.

Ultimately, it comes down to what is important to them, Joe Mauer wanted to play in MN and didn't want to play elsewhere, so he took a relatively cheap contract that allowed him to stay here. I say that because reports were out there that the Red Sox and Yankees were considering $300 million agreements. Most people don't really care where they live so it comes down to who give me the best chance to Win, have the best career I can have, and pays me the most. Also, ESPN's money issue the last couple of years has talked about money earned away from the contracts and how that varies per market and prominence. But in the case of a Cuban player the one this year points out that if you don't speak english, you don't get the endorsements, just ask Miggy.

This is great stuff, although there are more then one reason to sign an extension, most notably I get locked into a pay raise before I get hurt, and my agent suggests I do it because he wants the payday this month. I think that is why it is left out in this instance, but again, great stuff.

I understand your desire for exact circumstances and that is why I didn't directly reference you in my post. Those negotiations are not public. There are rumors from time to time about a player being offered more elsewhere and turning it down and rumors about players only going with that team because they were offered the most money. Nothing concrete. My point is that if there was fact to either side of the argument we wouldn't get to discuss it, takes the fun right out. Also, and in reference to the post earlier about it not being accurate. It may not be, only about 20% responded. But can you give me a clear example of an executive that on a survey said that he/she would take the most money period? Actual examples?... JK JK JK Those examples don't exist either. But Like I hinted to in my post segment, money may not be the complete determinate factor, but it is probably the largest, ie, if I am making a decision there are most likely 20 to 30 factors that come into play, and money is weighted towards the top, but it isn't the only thing I make a decision on. But if it is 30% of the total and the other factors are all close, then money wins. So, I completely see your side of it, yet arguing the other, kinda.

I really don't think that the climate has too much to do with it. Otherwise we would see Tampa and Miami on there too. Those southern teams are good, and who wouldn't want to go to a contender, ie Red Sox and Yankees as you mentioned. At the time of the survey the Angels hadn't tanked yet. The only team that is on there purely for the location would be the Padres. And honestly, who wouldn't want to live in San Diego?

I saw this article and I thought it would help a little, I say a little because only about 20% of the MLB players answered the survey. It is a survey about a lot of things but one of the questions asked was in reference to which team you would take less money to play for? and only 6.3% of the responses were "none" meaning they would take the highest amount offered to them. Here is the link: MLB Players Poll: Revealing Results about PEDs, Gay Teammates and more | AthlonSports.com Interesting side note, the next question was about what team you would never play for, and over 30% of the responses were "none, would play for any team" hinting that more likely that 30% of the players would take the most money offered. This is still much less then I anticipated.

I think that Gibson and Deduno get us to the Sept. 1 roster expansion. Gardy is a big fan of having pitchers work through dead arm (as am I). But, come then I think that Gibson for sure gets put on the DL with a "sore shoulder" or something like that. Maybe both. At which time they bring up Diamond and Hernandez and possibly even Hendricks. They go with a 5 or 6 man rotation. Also, I would like to see Herrmann go down and find that sweet swing again. He is piling up the K's again and keeping Ramirez is a plus till Mastro can make it back up.

I've listened to a few games on the radio for the Rock Cats and it seems like their play at 1B has been pretty bad. That you have to throw it to the chest or it's and error, no ability to scoop anything. That may be the reason for a high error mark for all of the infielders. When you know you have to make a perfect throw you start to aim and make even worse throws. Can anyone who has watched the Rock Cats this year on a consistent basis confirm or deny my hypothesis, mine is such a small sample size.

I actually really like this idea, especially if we are considering having Sano on the roster next year. The more veterans we have that speak his language the better for his conversion, even if they are a different dialect. Pipe dreams, but I like this one...

I don't want to sound like I am always backing up Ryan, but sometimes I feel like I have to just to make him appear to be anything but the worst GM ever. But, It seems like Ryan played his cards right so that no one would claim him. Maybe threatening to just let the other team take him and his money. My other thought is the luck card thrown by badsmurf. A lot of the teams in need of a good bat either at DH or off the bench have teams in front of them that are playing very well. And on the PTBNL, they are very rarely based on production, and I only say very rarely because I don't like absolutes when I don't have all of the facts, but I have never seen any case that it has every been based on quality of play of the other player. Most of the time PTBNL are trades that come down to the wire, either at the trade deadline or the 48 hour waiver clock, and the team getting the PTBNL hasn't had the time to fully scout the players in the lower minors. So, they will agree to the trade for a $ amount or one a a list of players the trading team says they can choose from.

I think the same way, lets see him try his thing against the pros, but sadly I don't believe the Twins will try that. The have only done that (Bring someone from AA to the show) with three players as of late. One was a disaster (Joe Benson), another one has not worked well at all (Hicks) but is still a possibility, and the last one (Parmelee) is still back and forth two years later. With that track record they will be too scared I think.

There is a lot to the waiver process, not just what immediately comes to mind. There is a ton of strategy to consider. It is possible that a team like the Yankees were working on a deal that was close before the trade deadline but the Twins felt it wasn't good enough so a if the Twins put him on waivers right away that team would claim him and say "give us what we want, or give him too us, or keep him, your call." Giving them leverage on a player that wasn't worth as much then. Also, since the trade rumors started, Justin hit terrible. So there is thought that having it die down and giving him peace about it could get him to straighten out his head, creating more value. If he passed through waivers unclaimed he would hear about it nonstop again until traded. My point, there are so many strategies that come into place with these waivers it is almost impossible to criticize until we know what happened. Now with that being said, I love to speculate on what could happen and why it could have happened that way, so cheer-e-o. P.S. - Everything we know about Hunter and Mourny leads to them being great teammates. It is very possible/probable that there scuff was a misunderstanding by two people from completely different worlds. Hunter is a prankster, loud, and happy-go-lucky, Justin is Canadian...