Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jimmer

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,027

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

 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 jimmer

  1. jimmer
    Really does have a lot to do with each person's individual definition of character. Either way, you make an interesting point and one that should at least be considered. And you were able to do it in a polite way.
  2. jimmer
    Ah, the mystical properties of baseball.
  3. jimmer
    In regards to whether or not Sano should play 3B or move to another position, Some want the Twins to be move proactive. See problems ahead of time and then adjust so the problem gets minimized. These people see Plouffe's progression at 3B and Sano's challenges at the position already not to mention his size. Some want the Twins to just go with it (be re-active instead of proactive) and see how Sano plays 3B at the major league level while trading away a guy who has finally come into his own at his fairly new position. They point to a couple of examples of big 3Bs in history that were that good and don't see why Sano can't do it to and they aren't worried about what kind of hole while be created if Sano can't play 3B at the major league level and Plouffe is gone. Then there are some who want some mixture of both.
  4. jimmer
    If you change that to shortstop and go back a few years, you could be talking about the plan used for Plouffe (except the rush part) :-)
  5. jimmer
    I wanted a lot of people more than Gordon but, specifically, I wanted Trea Turner.
  6. jimmer
    yeah, I was banging my head up against the wall a lot knowing that.
  7. jimmer
    IMO, we just don't have anyone that we know for sure is capable of being a truly major league caliber starting shortstop. And we haven't for a long time (save 2010). The debate back and forth on Santana or Escobar is fun, but it's sad these are our choices to begin with (though I'm sure they are nice people).
  8. jimmer
    How could it NOT be okay to be excited about the Twins right now? They are playing inspired ball, they seem to care, and they seem to always be competitive. Is this not exactly how we want our team to play?
  9. jimmer
    It WAS a joking jab at Mauer's BA, but that's where it ended. It had nothing at all to do with the fact that Joe doesn't catch anymore and/or whether or not he should..
  10. jimmer
    above when I responded to your post by saying 'Better than Cain, Gordon and Dyson/Orlando/Rios and/or Marte, McCutchen, Polanco.' I meant to have a question mark there, not a period. You think our three (Rosario/Buxton/Hicks) will be better defensively than those two team OF?
  11. jimmer
    I believe Cameron talked a lot about sequencing to explain it and to explain why it likely doesn't continue. (which is clustering).
  12. jimmer
    Better than Cain, Gordon and Dyson/Orlando/Rios and/or Marte, McCutchen, Polanco.
  13. jimmer
    BTW, Tom, what you wrote was a very enjoyable read, thank you. It's nice to hear the Twins are having so much fun. Baseball should be fun.
  14. jimmer
    At this point, some are basically suggesting, in their knocks against their 'negative' articles, that national writers not post anything about the Twins unless they watch every minute of every game lest they have one or two inaccurate things and be dismissed as not knowing what they are talking about. That's asking too much ...and yet for a long time the complaint was the national writers ignore us.
  15. jimmer
    That's not really the same thing at all, but since you said that...you mean like the big positive thread I put up 2-3 days ago and which only had 9 responses? It was all about some of the positive things going for us this year. There were even suggested topics to be expounded on in other threads if one wanted to, as I pointed out in my BTW at the end. I was hoping all the people who like to point out all the negative threads would roll with it and there would be a lot more positive threads for us to discuss... and it got 9 responses. This isn't a complaint, just an interesting observation.
  16. jimmer
    Seems the popular opinion is that any story/article/evaluation that shows the Twins in a positive light is considered well done, well researched, well reasoned, etc. and any that doesn't show the Twins in a positive light gets nitpicked and labeled poorly done, poorly researched, bias against the Twins, etc.
  17. jimmer
    that's exactly what it sounded/read like to me.
  18. jimmer
    you lost me. subtle joke about misinterpretation?
  19. jimmer
    you REALLY have to WANT to see what caused such a harsh post Even with the word 'catch' in the OP, there was nothing close to suggesting Joe should be catching nor slamming Joe for not catching.
  20. jimmer
    The Ball bounced off the wall. It is known.
  21. jimmer
    Erroneous!
  22. jimmer
    At least he didn't miss a diving catch he had no chance to get, allowing the ball to get by him, and causing us to lose a playoff game. Now THAT would have been a boneheaded play. :-)
  23. jimmer
    Cue George Clinton and the Parliament Funkadelic....
  24. jimmer
    In that scenario: -One wouldn't expect his BABIP to continue, but it happened. And it was still based on his performance and not teammates. -One wouldn't expect his HR rate to happen, but it did. And it was still solely based on his performance and not teammates. RBI is different, while it did happen, it was greatly dependent on opportunity. I think your example would make a little more sense if you were talking about performances with RISP from year to year instead of RBI totals. Like a crazy BA or Slg% or OPS with RISP that is out of character for the batter that causes an RBI total out of whack with what he normally does? If we just look at RBI total, a guy could have 90 one year and hit poorly with RISP but have lot of opportunity, they next year he could hit great with RISP and have 65 RBI due to not so many opportunity. The amount of opportunities are completely out of his control. It's just not a good performance stat. Back to just RBI, Have you looked at the year Howard won MVP over Pujols? Howard had a few more RBI and many voters I heard mentioned that as a deciding factor. That he was a bigger run producer. Now look at their numbers with RISP and the discrepancy in number of PA with RISP. Who was actually better?
  25. jimmer
    it's been that way for awhile. How often have we read/heard oh he's just the #9 hitter, so it's fine as long as he plays good defense. Problems occur when this thought process is used unless, A: he is a seriously elite defensive player or B: you don't have like three guys on your team you are saying that about at that same time. Unfortunately option A hasn't been an issue for awhile and B has.
×
×
  • Create New...