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
    Anyone remember Mike Smith? Or am I dreaming him up?
  2. prouster
    Maybe. How is Polanco's slider?
  3. prouster
    I agree in general. I sometimes thinks it's useful, though, to question some of the assumptions that are baked into statistical analysis (especially sabermetrics), which people sometimes treat as objective truths. For example, that home runs are valuable is self evident, but the extent to which they're valuable isn't. Part of that judgment depends on the context in which a player hits his homers, and part depends on the biases of individual evaluators. So yeah, I just think it's worth pointing out that these stats are actually narratives we tell ourselves and not objective statements of fact.
  4. prouster
    This makes me wonder (without any real conviction) whether our default mode of talking about player value should be as an overall profile where defensive value is joined to offensive value. Doesn't Mauer provide an example where the sum is lesser than its parts? He may win a gold glove and OPS over .800, yet he's "slightly above average". If we seaparate his performance on each side of the ball, then I think he suddenly looks a lot more valuable. Have we deluded ourselves into believing the myth of overall player value, which is actually a fiction masquerading as quantitative fact?
  5. prouster
    Who could forget Bob Wells?
  6. prouster
    Scott Stahoviak Greg Myers
  7. prouster
    This is awesome. Fun stuff. Alex Ochoa Jeff Reboulet Dan Serafini
  8. prouster
    In general, I really like the work that the people at Fangraphs do. Sometimes, though, I think their snark is less snark than it is condescension or a lazy reliance on stereotypes (the Twins haven't historically developed good pitchers, therefore they ruined this one with their Twinsiness).
  9. prouster
    I should have been clearer. By "debate," I simply mean a discussion over a topic. People have their opinions and try to reasonably explain those opinions. What rubs me weird about this one is that Moya, whose name has been basically absent around here for weeks, is suddenly this point of contention. I (perhaps unfairly) read your post as part of what I see as a larger tapestry of complaints about the front office that I don't think are always fair or fully formed.
  10. prouster
    Okay, but where were you with this last week? If calling up Moya specifically was so urgent then, why wait until now to harp on it? My argument isn't "the bullpen is fine and needs no help." My argument is that one can always make oneself appear correct when they retroactively change the terms of a debate. And what kind of sense does it make to say something should have been done earlier, when that "something" doesn't seem like it actually occurred to anyone earlier? Anyway, I don't know why I respond to posts like this. Every time a player is called up, there's someone saying it should have happened weeks ago.
  11. prouster
    Of course I haven't read every post on every thread, but I don't recall Moya's name coming up a whole lot lately. Funny that he gets called up with twenty games left, and suddenly he should have been up with thirty.
  12. prouster
    I already said I'm not discussing this anymore (at least on this thread). Maybe you or someone else should start a new thread to discuss it further.
  13. prouster
    I agree that TR's reluctance to embrace analytics was a problem. However, I don't think it's fair to refuse credit for drafting Mauer and acquiring Johan. Those were just good moves, plain and simple.
  14. prouster
    Sure. But the pitcher has a defense behind him. It's also inherently more difficult to hit than to pitch. Once more, and this is my final post on the subject, I am not against defensive shifts (I feel like everyone who has responded skipped over this part). My reasoning for *simply suggesting* that some limitations could be good for the game are laid out in an earlier post. Isn't it more fun, after all, to watch a guy leg out a triple or get a clutch hit than to watch him smash a liner right at a guy who isn't normally there? I guess thinking this way makes me what...a simpleton? A relic?
  15. prouster
    Why should these pro fielders get the advantage of unfettered movement when the batter doesn't? If they want to make plays, get faster, get more agile, take better routes. See, this line of reasoning can very easily be applied in both directions.
  16. prouster
    Sure, but doesn't the batter's box exist because standing on home plate or right on top of the catcher unfairly mean unfairly "figuring out" how to neutralize the pitcher? Again. Not categorically opposed to shifts. Not suggesting shifts should go away. Not suggesting they're illegitimate. What I am suggesting is that there *could* be a point at which shifting constitutes an unfair advantage. An example of that *might* be the spontaneous invention of positions that didn't previously exist, or making unofficial roster moves that aren't recognized as such (for example, switching the left and center fielders without a corresponding change to the lineup card). I am merely suggesting that it *might* make sense to implement some formal process that discourages such moves if for the simple reason the manager finds it inconvenient to stroll out to home plate every time he wants to *radically* shift his players. Apologies for all the asterisks. However, they are apparently necessary in order to convey my meaning in a way that makes sense to vigilant and careless readers alike.
  17. prouster
    I don't disagree. I'm just wondering if there's a point at which defenses gain an unfair advantage. The batter can only be in the batter's box before the pitch is delivered, for instance. He can't stand on top of the plate to get deliberately plunked, nor can he stand with a foot behind the box to stay on tough fastballs/induce catcher's interference. If it's up to the batter to figure out the defense, why can't it be up to the defense to figure out the batter (taking better routes, honing their reflexes, etc.)? Again, I'm not categorically opposed to defensive shifts. I just think it would be valid to talk about whether there should be some limitations in place. Anyway, I didn't mean to get the thread off topic. As you were.
  18. prouster
    I don't mean to be a luddite, but I'm wondering if it's getting to be time for MLB to intervene when it comes to defensive alignments. In the article, Arizona's manager mentions having the left fielder swing across the outfield to play between CF and RF. Isn't that a position change, and shouldn't he be forced to report it to the umpire and leave the player at that position for the rest of the game, or at least report it to the ump if he wants to move that player back to LF? I don't know. I think teams should definitely have some leeway with positioning their defense, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to put limits on what they can actually do.
  19. prouster
    This seems like cherry picking to me. What's your point? It reads like you're saying Davis was really good, but actually not that good. I guess you'll be right on Buxton either way, then.
  20. prouster
    I think that's bWAR. He's at 2.5 or so on Fangraphs and (I think) 3.8 WARP at Baseball Prospectus. So all in all, a very solid season thus far.
  21. prouster
    It's a separate debate because the decision to trade someone is different from the return for that player. When the Twins traded Johan, it was clearly the proper thing to do. However, there was a lot of reason to think the return wasn't as good as it could have been. So, the decision to make the trade exists (in theory) independtently of the return. Of course, sometimes an overwhelming return is the thing that ultimately makes a trade happen. I think that's becoming rarer as front offices rely more and more on data.
  22. prouster
    It's worth remembering that Kintzler is a free agent at the end of the year. They decided to get something for him when the alternative was getting nothing. At the time, a wildcard spot seemed at best a remote possibility. They made the right decision to trade him. Whether they got enough in return is a separate debate. It's also worth remembering that Kintzler is not the kind of reliever who moves the needle all that much. He's a sturdy and more or less reliable presence, which is of course nice to have. That said, they didn't just trade peak Joe Nathan. It's interesting to me how people are responding now that we're somewhat on the other end of the Matt Capps trade. It's not a perfect comparison, but I'm fascinated by the vitriol over trading a decent reliever for an okay prospect. The bullpen has been a weakness all season. It would be a weakness if Kintzler was still closing. Injuries to the starting staff have exacerbated things a bit, as have poor performances by some guys they expected more from (Presley, Duffey). Picking up someone on waivers isn't likely to change that. Tim Melville is an example of this (recall the pain and suffering his start caused some last week and the earlier anguish over Craig Breslow being the "big" offseason signing; that's essentially the kind of pitcher they could pick off waivers). I think they should roll with what they've got and address it in the offseason.
  23. prouster
    Joe Mauer can pull the ball to right field. In fact, he has done it many times in his career. Most of the games are televised, so you can actually see video of it occurring.
  24. prouster
    Okay. Gibson started today. If he started the first game yesterday, then who starts today? Duffey has been in the bullpen all year. He's not a starter. Get over it. Gonsalves pitched on Sunday. Should they have brought him up on short rest? Slegers could have indeed started game one. However, I'm not sure there's a huge difference between him and Melville (unless for some reason there's a definite future for Slegers and not Melville, which doesn't seem like a tenable opinion to me). My main point: It was a spot start. This is a really useless hill to die on.
  25. prouster
    Actually it isn't.
×
×
  • Create New...