Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

prouster

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,050

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 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 prouster

  1. prouster
    Agree to disagree, but I think you're over estimating any impact he may have had. Garver was a monster at Triple-A, and he hasn't been very impressive in the Majors. One could argue he's only on the WC roster in case something goes horribly wrong with the first two catchers. Hague has been maybe less impressive in his brief MLB stints. I suppose anyone could lay into one on a given pitch, but I have a hard time thinking Hague is any more likely to do so than the guys they're bringing to New York. To me, this just feels like criticism for the sake of criticism. If Hague was called up, then why not Palka? If Palka, then why not Wade? Etc.
  2. prouster
    LENIII with tonight's lineup:
  3. prouster
    Matt Hague is he of the .789 OPS across a full season at Triple-A. I thought that the mention of his name was a joke at first, but I guess not. I don't think the Twins will miss him tonight.
  4. prouster
    I, too, prefer levity over critiquing events that have not yet happened.
  5. prouster
    Sorry, I'm referring to Sawchick.
  6. prouster
    No, but the latter definitely implied it. His argument is literally that the WC1 team should have an even greater mathematical advantage over WC2 (i.e. MLB should intervene by manufacturing conditions more likely to produce a specific outcome). To create a system that further benefits an already "better" team would be to actively organize reality around a predetermined outcome. Yes, this involves actual wins and losses, but it stems from the notion that WC2 doesn't really deserve to advance under the existing rules, despite winning enough games to earn that chance. With that, wins and losses already matter. If a team doesn't want to play in a do-or-die scenario, they have the option of winning their division. I just disagree with your reading here. And I hardly see what Korean ball and soccer have to do with anything.
  7. prouster
    Has anyone mentioned Coom-dawg yet?
  8. prouster
    I was being cheeky. This is a Dozier thread, after all. I've noticed those go downhill pretty fast.
  9. prouster
    And for the record, I'm not mad about either article. That would be silly. My angst, as you put it, is about the worldview that allows someone to say the models forecasting events that have not yet occurred are somehow more true than the events that disrupt those models. This is about more than sports for me. It's about pigeonholing human behavior into easily predictable categories, then crying foul when there is a deviation.
  10. prouster
    I know Sullivan isn't making a claim. The "good or bad" frame makes for a stupid question, though. Everything is both good and bad. Literally everything. It's a question high schoolers ask when writing crappy essays. I'm responding more to the Sawchick piece, which adds some necessary context to Sullivan's. There has been some pearl clutching lately at Fangraphs over the validity of "inferior" teams making post season runs. To me, the general mindset seems to be that the game should more closely follow the models. That's not fun. It's a perverse corporatization of spectatorship. I don't want data driven viewing. I want to be dazzled by the unexpected. I want the game to take me places I haven't been before. I want the numbers to be useful inasmuch as they tell us what we might reasonably expect. I don't want them to organize events that have not yet occurred. That's my opinion.
  11. prouster
    I don't really care that he uses the Twins to frame the discussion. My biggest critique is that it came out a day or two after a different article bemoaning the existence of the second wild card. That author (Sawchick I think) essentially argues that the second wild card is unfair, because it makes things more difficult for the first wild card and opens the possibility for a less than stellar team to win it all. The reason I don't accept these arguments is that baseball is a game played by living, breathing humans. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to want the best to face the best. If the players want that to happen, though, they have to actually beat their "inferior" opponents. If they can't beat these teams, then why should they deserve to advance? Because they won more games over a different, albeit longer, arbitrary time period? I get no joy whatsoever out of crafting a system that *follows* data, and by that I mean a system that we tweak in order to match what the numbers are telling us. Where is the fun in actively pursuing this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy? The numbers should come after the game is played. The game should not exist in the service of algorithms. So, yeah, I think there is joy in surprise. One of the pleasures of athletics is that sometimes teams and individuals rise up and do more than we thought them capable. That's what it's all about--testing the physical limits of our species under specific rules and conditions. I'd never replace that with a system that takes its marching orders from quantitative inputs.
  12. prouster
    More runs doesn't predict success?
  13. prouster
    This raises an interesting question. Are these numbers meant to be predictive, or are they more, "here are the odds of a team making the playoffs having done what this team has done"? Does that language capture the difference I'm trying to describe?
  14. prouster
    Maybe it doesn't eliminate all double plays, but I think it's obvious that a sac bunt with a runner on first prevents a conventional 4-6-3/6-4-3/5-4-3 double play grounder. Any double play after that would have to be unconventional.
  15. prouster
    I guess we're operating on different definitions of what looking past a team is. Ignoring the probabilities because you just swept the team and you'll be at home? I sure wouldn't feel comfortable with that strategy. One game is chaos. I'd do everything I could to add order to that chaos. Maybe that means starting Severino. Maybe it means Garcia or Gray. I think there's a case to be made for any of the three. Hell, maybe they'll have Sabathia go four and follow him with Robertson and Betances with Chapman to close it out, thinking Severino can give them seven or eight against Cleveland. Regardless of who they start, I can assure you it's because they think he gives them the best chance to win that one game.
  16. prouster
    No—when the season comes down to one game, a team will do everything they can to win. It makes no sense to assume the Yankees would look past the Twins, simply because they've already beaten them. Keep in mind, the Twins beat them twice earlier in the year. They'll be prepared, and they'll probably play a tough game. Frankly, I'm astonished that anyone would think otherwise.
  17. prouster
    I mean, why would they not?
  18. prouster
    Actually the Yankees will "concern themselves with how we match up." It's a one and done play in game between (like it or not) two professional ball clubs. Anything can happen.
  19. prouster
    Yeah, they've wet themselves against some good teams. But they also swept Cleveland and Arizona earlier this year. I agree they need pitching. My main point: this is a weird team.
  20. prouster
    Bobby Kielty
  21. prouster
    It seems to me you all actually kind of agree.
  22. prouster
    I agree. I think by "results," we should probably be looking for roster and personnel decisions that fill needs and each marginally improve the team on the field and the bureaucratic apparatus surrounding it. Hopefully the cumulative effect is a WS championship, though I think it's probably best to evaluate Falvine from the perspective of their decision making. After that, it's up to the guys on the field to perform.
  23. prouster
    That's right. I remember thinking that at the time, but the stats really don't bear it out. 0.4 fWAR on the season, 59 wRC+. He doesn't look much better breaking the season into parts. Nonetheless, he did his job and pumped people up. There's value in that.
  24. prouster
    Henry Blanco. I seem to remember him filling in temporarily as the starting catcher, and his bat wasn't terrible. In my memory, fans would sometimes chant/make signs to the extent of "Blanco for MVP." Now when I look at his Fangraphs page, there doesn't seem to be a single stint where this could have been possible. Am I making this up?
  25. prouster
    That sounds right.
×
×
  • Create New...