Paul

Thank you for your reply, and especially for the tone of your words. First, let me save you the trouble of reviewing my comments and again clearly state my position on the clutch thing. As I recall we are basicly in agreement. I believe what the observer sees as "stepping up" in high pressure situations is in reality not stepping up, but rather "not stepping back" with the competition. In other words, some people handle pressure better than others. Ask the carpenter if the boss has a guy he would call on to get the job done under an unreasonable deadline. Ask the baker if he's got a guy he can count on under any circumstances. This is what you are asking the BB player. Do you see that some players are better in the clutch for some reason? Not about the molecules and atomic structure of a bat. Or the load bearing physics of leather from various locations on the cow or kangaroo. Or the magnus effect on the ball. Or asking him to design a new and better pitching machine. I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to find any pros that would say no. It's my postion that this is most definitely tangible and can be taught and observed. It's as tangible as happiness. As confidence. As certainty. As knowing. It comes from reps. Drilling. Experience. Learning to deal with the endocrinological issues of pressure. In fact, because baseball is a game of mistakes, it seems to me that that might just be the major focus.

First, let me say I'm not trying to insult or injure you or anyone. "That's my bone to pick with those who "laced 'em up". They think the stat geeks only look at fangraphs and don't actually watch the games." Apparently you're talking about me. If you are, you are wrong. I am certain you look at fangraphs AND watch the games. (I've only seen 5 or 6 games this year so I'm sure you are much better informed on the current state of the Twins than I am.) "Stats are part of the story. A more reliable part of the story than any "well, when I played" antecdote someone who laced them up can offer." I agree 100% with this statement. But the phrase "laced 'em up" is not referring to anecdotes. It's referring to empirical data. Something, I believe, most scientists weigh a little more heavily than some local baseball stat guys. Why is it so hard for some to understand that experience informs. There are thousands of finer points and subtleties in the simplest of endeavors. I understand that the baker, mechanic, roofer, carpenter, accountant, doctor, banker, lawyer and stat geek know more about baking, fixing cars, roofing, building houses, accounting, healing, banking, law and stats than I do. Why do some not understand this? Especially with something as complicated as baseball? "Also, what exactly is a vacuum of understanding?" I'm guessing this is a rhetorical question. If I'm wrong I'd recommend the "World Book" dictionary. (You might also want to look up the word "figurative".) "Is it a Kirk Van Houten lyric?" I'm guessing this is also a rhetorical question. I am unfamiliar with the reference. Let me know if you consider it pertinent to our discussion and I will research it.

Hence the bone I have to pick with the local stat geeks. When stats are viewed in a vacuum of understanding you get wierd solutions like this. This exact thing prompted my "lace 'em up" crack a while back, that proved to be so unintentionally inflammatory.

My dream. Danny starts tearin up AAA and pushes Plouffe back to another try at SS where he sticks. And Dozier becomes the "Punto" referenced above.

"It has been shown that if you randomly promote workers your company will be better off with more appropriate and solid workers at every level. Now that is a pretty counter-intuitive idea." Sounds like a bizzare way to offset the Peter Principle.

Fantastic interview. Very bright, very ethical man. The Twins are lucky to have him. As to the kerfuffle about not taking stikes...he was talking about the low MINOR leagues. Not the Major league. The goals are different. The goal in the Majors is to win games. The goal in the Minors is to get to the Majors. You want your kids learning how to drive a thrown strike, or at least go get it. They're taught zone recognition as well, but as a separate advanced skill.

I know how you feel

The non-snark crowd? Where do they hang out?

Ben, you took issue with my "lace 'em up" jab. Sorry. Didn't mean to insult anyone. But if you want to find out about making bread you ask the baker. Not the bakery's accountant. And I don't consider this "outside of that psychology", but some players handle pressure/stress better than other players.

I'm not sure what opinion you feel is bull. The aspect referred to in the comment you cited was the mental aspect. Do you believe applying your mind to baseball is bull? Do you believe all ML players handle stress/pressure the same? I agree with you about clutch as I've commented earlier in this thread. To save you any searching I'll paraphrase what I said earlier. I believe what people see as clutch is the ability to confront a high pressure situation without whithering. Without back down. Without backoff. However frequently or infrequently. While the competition whithers to a degree. What is mistakenly seen as "stepping up" is in reality "not stepping back" with the competition.

Thank you, jokin. I was thinkin the same thing... "A lot of opinions being thrown out in this thread with little understanding of the importance of this aspect." I'm thinkin I could pick out the guys that laced 'em up.

Brian, I know this is not my business but, why do you apologize to someone who attacks you? Your comment added to and furthered the discussion. There was absolutely nothing positive in his comment.

"That's all well and good, but this isn't little league or high school baseball or whatever" I used to play with a guy who roomed with Bret Saberhagen in AAA. I recall a conversation we had where I asked him about the mental aspect of the game at that level. I was curious as all the witness I had borne indicated that the higher you go the greater the impact of the mental aspect. His opinion was at the ML level that's all there is. That's the one variable you work on to control. We're talkin bout focus, composure, poise (great word), control of emotion, work ethic, durability, etc. The handling of pressure situations and the attendant endocrinological (sorry bout this word but it's the only one that fits) issues most certainly falls under this heading. After all "this isn't little league or high school baseball or whatever". In the ML everybody throws hard and straight and can catch a ball, and runs fast and hits hard. Harnessing the mind separates one from competitors. So I guess in my final analysis most of "the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1%" have the same human frailties as us lesser beings.

Rocketpig and Jokin, I'd like to offer my take on the "No guts. No glory." thing. I think it's a real thing. With real viewed results like jokin has seen. But the cause is misunderstood. And rocketpig is correct. This is no superhuman feat by guys like Jeter. What I see is the ability to confront the situation without whithering. And act. With no back down. With no backoff. This coupled with the slight whithering of other competitors, in high pressure situations, results in what is viewed "stepping up" rather than the reality of not stepping back.

"He is not worth 23 million." To me, this statement statement is the epitome of the Maurer non-love. At best this statement is completely subjective and ignores the marketplace reality. I happen to think Ferraris are not worth 280 grand. And Harleys are not worth 25K. And softball bats are not worth $350. And $180 is too much for a baseball bat for my 11 yr old grandson. And gas is not worth $3.30. But in the end I buy some of this stuff. Begrudgingly, but with an understanding of the market reality.

This is my case: The minors obviously exist for a reason. The gradient aproach works great for any kind of education. But students successfully skipping grades is not unheard of either. To oversimplify, in baseball the higher the grade the faster the game is. Also the higher you go the greater the weight psychology has in the equation of success. Sometimes what a viewer sees as a "beating" is just part of the process. Sometimes the fact that "we aren't seeing progress" doesn't mean it's not occurring. Gardenhire has the final say in this kids education. And just maybe he knows what he's doing. (Somehow he's convinced a lot of people he does.) He determines where the kid is going to play. He's there observing every day. He sees what you and I see on the field. And a whole lot more in the dugout, in practice, in the clubhouse, and on the road, that we don't see, but nevertheless informs him. I don't know but, perhaps he feels the speed of the game is not the issue. Maybe some kids need more of a "beating" than others to feel they belong. Maybe Gardy feels the "beating" is not something he can even get in AAA. Whatever Gardenhire feels, rest assured he has talked to Brian. And Brian knows the program.

Thank you Brian. As to your critique of the "nasty attack side of this thread", I enjoyed it, and the concept of giving diamonds to ducks springs to mind for some reason.

C'mon Brian, that never happens on the internet.

I know a little about pitching. I hope this helps. The sinker that is Blackburn's bread and butter is a real finesse pitch. I believe the Twins staff, me, and plenty of others, were enamored with Blackburn because of his fleeting mastery of the pitch. And the belief that his simple mechanics put the unfleeting mastery of the pitch within his grasp. I have to admit that I haven't watched much of the Twins the past year so I really don't have an opinion on what's wrong now. I do know that the sinker must be mixed with at least 1 other pitch, and a SP needs to be able to change speeds. Because it tips the pitch, ML pitchers rarely succeed with different arm slots for different pitches. Unfortunately different arm slots work best for different pitches, so finding a slot that works best for the mix is challenging. Arm/shoulder/elbow pain can put a pitcher at odds with his body and render a particular pitch ineffective. If a sinker don't sink, or a cutter don't cut, or a slider don't slide, you ain't exactly helping out. Finally, you can hang a sinker just like a curveball, so if you aren't commanding whatever you're throwing you won't succeed. Blackburn could have 1 or all of these maladies, I don't know because I haven't seen him. But one thing's for certain, he's not carrying his end right now.

Perhaps someone who compares a SS offensive stats with a backup catcher's should not be considered credible. I wonder if Gardy would "take him back in a heartbeat"?

For Hardy's entire career, save 09 when the Brewers dicked him around and 10 when he was battling an injured wrist, he has been well above average ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL.

You're welcome and deserving!

MWLFan, Seth and Riverbrian, I think this is a first. I can't remember reading 4 posts in a row on this site that had this level of intelligence and insightfulness rather than emotion and incitefulness. Thank you.

I take solace from only one aspect of the whole Nishioka / Hardy swap. And that is that the lessons Gardenhire learned will stick. I don't know the problem between Gardy and Hardy, I can only speculate, which I've done plenty on this site in other postings. But, can you imagine the frustration Gardy felt, and the aging it caused him, when he had to watch that kid stumble around 2B until he broke his leg? And then, because of the investment, be convinced SS might work better because he couldn't avoid the runner as a 2B. And then have to watch that kid stumble around at SS, the place your leader on D plays. Remember the Pavano emotional display in the dugout? You think he was the only player that felt that? No, that was a rough clubhouse last year. So anyway, I take a little solace in the fact that, because of the magnitude of the pain, the lessons will not be forgotten. I just hope the aging on him doesn't cause him to wanna be shut of this place.

Another nice job Parker. It's hard to weigh the worth to the team in keeping Frankie vs flipping him. I'm at about 51% on my mental scale that he should be kept. For 2 reasons: 1. Pitchers, even stupid pitchers, get wiser about their job as they get older. And pitchers can stay in the game until their stuff erodes and no one wants to pay them anymore. Frankie's stuff is great. 2. There's SO much potential.