Jump to content
Help us design a better Twins Daily for you by filling out this user survey, click here! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jimmer

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,027

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by jimmer

  1. jimmer
    'Better players peak earlier in their careers. While the general population peaks at age 27, the group of good players peak at either 25 or 26 years old. Hall-of-famers don’t usually peak — instead, they plateau. From ages 24 to 30, their production is generally constant. From then on, it drops at a high rate.' http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-do-star-hitters-age/
  2. jimmer
    Remember that if it weren't for the amazing record we had in May, which is in the first half when Sano wasn't even on the team, we wouldn't have been within shot. We were 41-37, and 4.5 games back in the division pre-Sano and 42-42 with Sano, ending up 12 games back in the division. We can't pretend we made some great surge after promoting him.
  3. jimmer
    It'll be because this trainwreck of a team built by our recently departed GM hasn't been able to be repaired quickly enough. :-)
  4. jimmer
    That wasn't exactly the wizard I had in mind, but yeah...he might be able to do it too :-)
  5. jimmer
    and, mostly, ignoring how bad the defense is...when they talk about how good they think the offense is. As if we shouldn't take into account that the same guys on offense are also out in the field with gloves on :-)
  6. jimmer
    I'm told he lived on this planet about 2000 years ago or so.
  7. jimmer
    I'm not the one who came up with the Mattingly comparison nor am I the one who said Mattingly was the best comparison. I questioned the comparison. Anyway, Mauer: Better BA, better OBP, better OPS+, better wRC+, much better numbers with RISP, and he did that mostly while enduring the physical demands of playing catcher. Mattingly got to play the least demanding position on the field. Taking all that into consideration, Mauer's the better hitter, and he's a better overall player. And he didn't 'crater' until he had the concussion. He was having his 3rd best season when that happened. 3 batting titles (no AL catcher in history has even one) an MVP, led the league in BA/OBP/SLG % becoming the first player in 30 years to do it, and no other catcher ever did it. Considering everything, I'll take Joe as the better offensive player, and better player period. Mattingly does have him by 90 or so HR, though, again, a 1st baseman versus a catcher. Mauer could make the HOF. He ranks favorably with other HOF catchers.
  8. jimmer
    No they aren't part of the problem, but even with them, the Twins are looking at 100 or more losses, which is the point. It's why, IMO, we trade them. We are so far off and those two have value to get younger players who will hopefully help when we're hopefully relevant again. Dozier and Santana and some others, like Mauer, won't be around when that time happens. Or we can just do what we normally do, which is hold on to our veterans too long until they drop too low to have value
  9. jimmer
    How has having Santana and Dozier been working for the Twins this year?
  10. jimmer
    The Blue Jays, for their part, decided defense was also important :-) And they also have the 3rd best pitching staff in the AL, and arguably the best rotation (though I'd go with Indians).
  11. jimmer
    I think Mauer was a better player than Mattingly. Though having some similarities,does it matter Mauer has 6 more WAR in 1000 less PAs and will likely end up with 10+ WAR more than Mattingly does?
  12. jimmer
    To repeat, Jays have the 4th lowest K% in the AL. % is based on number of PA and number of Ks. Twins and blue jays have exactly the same amount of PA. 5092
  13. jimmer
    yeah, it's pretty hard to fault the Blue jays offensively. Far and away the most runs scored in the AL (by 130 runs or so), 4th lowest K% in the AL,, a team wRC+ 10 points higher than the #2 team in the AL in wRC+, and the best OBP in AL (12 points over #2). All while having an average BABIP. But going strictly by 'clutch' number, we're 2nd in the AL in clutch hitting while Toronto ranks 7th. Meaning we are getting the most out of the talent on our offense while the Blue Jays could be even more of a dominate offensive force :-)
  14. jimmer
    Some thought the rotation would be really good this year because of 2015. Used the same kind of argument. Anyway, to answer the question, for me, that's a yes. It really is tough to envision a combo of those pitchers being a decent rotation. -May is very likely going to stay a reliever. Even if that changes, it's going to take time to get him ready for the rotation again. -Berrios doesn't look close, not sure he'll be really ready next year. -Santiago? No. -Gibson? No. -Duffey? No. -Santana? Yes And without know what Dozier would get back, that part is incomplete. That's a very shaky list of options to roll with. There's a whole lot of no's in there and the look back to rotation 2015 as a hope it might be good in 2017 is flawed. The same rotation that was decent for part of 2015 was almost the same rotation that was horrible in 2014. So while keeping the one pitcher we should be able to reasonably count on can seem appealing, when looking at the talent on this team and remembering we're likely going to lose 100 games this year even with him on the roster (and performing well), might as well trade him and hope to get younger guys in that will help in the future.
  15. jimmer
    Exactly. I'm trying to figure out how it'd be bad to trade Dozier and Santana because it'd be seen as giving up on next season (as if having them is preventing us from losing 100 games this year anyway), but then doing things like trading prospects for established quality players, which might hasten our return to contention, would also be bad. It's not like option three, go crazy in FA, is going to be the route taken.
  16. jimmer
    Now Mauer is clogging the bases? Really? Wow. Does this guy even deserve to be on a MLB team at this point? Mauer is not a negative on the basepads. He's right at average for a MLB baserunner (because it's more than just speed that makes a baserunner good).. On our current roster, Kepler, Rosario, Dozier, Escobar and Grossman are rated better base-runners. That's five guys. Of those five guys, Escobar and Grossman aren't really regulars. Of those five only Grossman, gets on base at a higher clip (and again, not really a regular any more). None of the other four are within even 30 OBP points of Mauer (most not even close). Two of those guys have sub .300 OBP. Do we want the guy with a .376 OBP getting less PAs? This guy doesn't.
  17. jimmer
    Gisbon may have been a solid starter last year (mostly for one month), but there were signs he was trending down (like his ERA of 5.22 in the 2nd half). It's why I kept saying towards the end of last season and early offseason that we should trade him while he was still looking decent because this year we were likely to see him perform quite a bit worse. Admittedly, I didn't expect him to be THIS bad (yet he is somehow still our second best starter in a rotation that was so talented it didn't have room for May)
  18. jimmer
    Yes, A thousand times yes!
  19. jimmer
    For what a team gets out of Santana, he is under-paid. There's value in getting a pitcher of that quality for two years at 28M (two years at 13.5 plus 1M buyout). In the last 6 seasons, he's missed out on being worth at least 18M once, and that was last year when he was suspended.
  20. jimmer
    I should have given the link when I stated what I did. My bad.
  21. jimmer
    Exactly. Doing a rebuild often hurts. And it's not like having Dozier and Santana has stopped us from the very real possibility of having 100+ loses. Some seem so committed to trading off vets for prospects, except the good vets that might actually net us prospects worthwhile. The fact that we are a ways off and guys like Dozier and Santana are really good is exactly why you trade them. Need to trade for more youngsters that will hopefully be good whenever the time comes when we are actually relevant again.
  22. jimmer
    Dozier has done really well batting first, but even better batting 4th and 5th (though batting 5th has a pretty small sample size).
  23. jimmer
    Ah, the rotation built so well, Trevor May couldn't crack into the rotation this year even after his performance last year :-)
  24. jimmer
    I'd be right with you on a majority of those listed.
  25. jimmer
    The last 11 games kind of shows maybe the lousy start wasn't quite as out of line as one might have originally thought :-)
×
×
  • Create New...