Jump to content
Our free agent ranking is up to 100 names, and now you can filter by player position! Click here to check it out! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

gunnarthor

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,019

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

 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 gunnarthor

  1. gunnarthor
    His fingers brushed the guys foot (there was no pull), had no impact on the throw and would in no way injure the fielder. It's a non-issue. The fact that one could argue, as spycake did, that his actions would have been fine if he had merely accidentally used his arms to trip up the fielder shows the randomness of this rule. These will always be judgement calls (as are many of baseballs rules) but I would err on the side of not calling something and giving way more deference to the umps on the field than on replay.
  2. gunnarthor
    I think the part where I said the new rule seems good on paper pretty well summed up my view. If the player primarily slides into the bag to bust up the double play, it should be fine. But I don't think that is what we're seeing. I think where we disagree is the judgement of how the rule is being implemented. Especially when the judgement of the umps on the field view it differently (in real time) then do the reply officials in NY. Both of these plays were on close plays at second base where the base runner slid hard into the bag. That should be fine. (And the umps thought so, too). I'm not sure, based on those two rulings, how any close slide would be considered legal b/c almost all close plays would result in some form of contact.
  3. gunnarthor
    The "intent to injure" part was missing. I think that's a pretty big assumption. I think a lot plays want to slide with the intention of breaking up a double play. Very few, if any, want to slide with the intention of injuring the opposing player.
  4. gunnarthor
    I said it before, on paper the new rule seems fine. From earlier in this thread - "My thinking is that that part of the old rule was never enforced and what this new rule is trying to do is make sure slides like Utley's don't happen. I don't think the umpires will be too aggressive but we'll see. I don't think this changes much since slides like Utley's were pretty rare. Where we'll end up seeing controversy is if/when umpires call interference on plays most of us think were pretty tame. The way we some problems with the 'catch' rule implemented last year, IIRC. Generally, I don't think this is a big deal. It gives some consideration to player safety, doesn't alter the game much and will probably be forgotten fairly soon. I admit, I loved the Hal McRae slides but those have been out of baseball for 30+ years. The game is fine. I don't think we're going to be turning into the Japanese game where this is no contact at second, but we'll see." But now we're in a judgement zone and the two early judgement calls - esp with being reversed by NY - make it look a lot worse.
  5. gunnarthor
    Sweet. Man, after you said it wasn't Rob Deer, I was really curious who it was but was doing my best not go google the answer. Glad I got the answer before I went home.
  6. gunnarthor
    No one said that.
  7. gunnarthor
    Nobody is promoting flying kicks. Let's keep it respectful, ok? You can disagree with someone and still not resort to this patronizing tone.
  8. gunnarthor
    Well, oops. That's ok, we'll win the rubber game on national TV!
  9. gunnarthor
    Apparently, not Japan. Look, your views on this are pretty well known and most of the discussions on this thread have been pretty good and respectful. Let's not get away from that.
  10. gunnarthor
    Well, the rule actually doesn't need the runner to be hit by the ball but again, it's a judgement call.
  11. gunnarthor
    I believe this game is on mlb network or espn tonight, as well. So it would be great if we looked good for a national audience.
  12. gunnarthor
    There is a happy medium between nothing and Utley. We played it for years. The Toronto and Atlanta slides wouldn't have made anyone blink last year. And now we're in the "if he tried to trip him with his arm instead of his hand ..." line of reasoning.
  13. gunnarthor
    Man, I'd like to trade some of my wood for all that wheat you apparently have ... If these two plays are indicative of how the rules will be enforced, I think any hard slide when the throw is a bit late will be in violation of the rule. We will see.
  14. gunnarthor
    Of the names you mentioned, I like Melotakis the most. I do think that Kohl Stewart will have a nice season for us but I'm not sure if a former top pick is a "break out candidate."
  15. gunnarthor
    I think it should. Yesterday, Carlos Correa clearly ran out of the base paths to affect a throw and was rewarded, despite it being against the rules. So we're in this ugly situation of a bunch of "eye-of-the-boholder" calls, only some are reviewable in NY and some aren't. I understand that some people don't think a baserunner should try and break up a double play but I'm not one of them. I would miss that about the game.
  16. gunnarthor
    Maybe the obvious inferiority of the NL makes the projection system better?
  17. gunnarthor
    I think we have a different view of "blatantly" (or in spycake's view "egregious") I don't think his arm affected the throw at all. We'll see how people adjust (including umps) but I think the first two calls mean we are looking a lot more like the Japanese version of the game than I thought we would be. I'm sure everyone will get used to it but it seems a bit sad to me. As Mike says, YMMV.
  18. gunnarthor
    Over. I thought last years team was a .500ish team coming out of ST and this team is better so we should be able to top 79 wins.
  19. gunnarthor
    On wins, it's off, on average of 6-7 wins per year. Sometimes more. Supporters argue that 6 or 7 wins is as close as you can get on a projection system. I think that's a heck of cop out - basically a projected 81-81 record would be "correct" if the team won anywhere between 75 and 87 games. The second issue - projected final standings, I'm not sure about. Most people focus on the record. When I've looked at the projected standings, they are right around a third of the time but I'm not sure if that's an accurate representation of PECOTA. As mentioned above, last year they were 0-15 on projected standings in the AL.
  20. gunnarthor
    I believe that was Rob Deer but I could be wrong. Late 80s or early 90s, when scoring was down.
  21. gunnarthor
    I think that would be perfectly fine so long as Toronto was able to have "fun" the next game. :-)
  22. gunnarthor
    I have a theory, as yet proven, that Gibson's sinker doesn't sink in cold weather games and that's what he had all last April. When the weather was nice (like in ST), his sinker worked.
  23. gunnarthor
    Wow, I think the Jays fans are right to be pissed (Atlanta fans, too). If that's the new rule, we're a lot closer to the Japanese version of the game than I thought. We'll see how umps are dealing with this in a few weeks but if this indicative of the how the new rule will affect games, that's pretty bad.
  24. gunnarthor
    I'm pretty sure they'll be off by about 7 games per team and their final standing projections will probably get about a third of the teams in the right place.
  25. gunnarthor
    I wouldn't overly worry about PECOTA projections. Last year, they were off, on avg, by over 8 games for each AL team and only within 5 games for 4 teams. And there were just as off on their final projected standings - 0-15 on placing the teams in their own divisions and only got two teams within one standing place of their actual, final spot. Last year you could have drawn teams out of a hat and crushed PECOTA.
×
×
  • Create New...