Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

spinowner

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,904

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 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 spinowner

  1. spinowner
    I'm not going to address any specific post(s) but I think it's sheer guesswork on our part whether the changes in his role on the staff contributed to this injury. That may have or it may not have, I don't know. I would put stock in the opinion of an orthopedic surgeon or perhaps another health care provider but not in the opinion of a baseball writer or a web site participant.
  2. spinowner
    I suppose that's fine, but a team can go 0 for ST for all I care if they come out and play well in April.
  3. spinowner
    Y'know, now that I think about it, Craig also looks a lot like Brock. And Mike.
  4. spinowner
    Neither do I, but I checked: No player has ever worn #86 in a regular season MLB game.
  5. spinowner
  6. spinowner
    I didn't say this at the time Napoli signed, but I thought it was a win-win. He gets to play for a probable contender and the Twins don't spend money on a player that does nothing toward building a probable contender.
  7. spinowner
    I'm surprised nobody has posted this link yet so I'll do it. http://www.startribune.com/joe-mauer-s-lock-on-no-3-lineup-spot-for-the-twins-is-not-a-certainty/415050194/
  8. spinowner
    About 5 years ago Aaron Hicks hit a bunch of ST dingers too.
  9. spinowner
    You probably really hated Dutch Rennert then.
  10. spinowner
  11. spinowner
    I never really thought about it like that and I'll bet $100 if you look at the Strib comments there are many people saying both things. It seems the expectation is that ownership should overpay, the players should overproduce, and the team should go 174-0.
  12. spinowner
    Funny how the graphic shows the stadium full of fans.
  13. spinowner
    CBU: Twins up 4-1. Vance Worley (yes, that Vance Worley) comes in for the Nats to pitch the bottom of the third.
  14. spinowner
    One of the someplace elses would probably be ticket and concession prices. I'm in favor of any enhancement of revenue that keeps those down, even if it means having to make a 30-second increase in the amount of time I spend ignoring commercials between innings.
  15. spinowner
    This is by far the biggest reason for longer game times. It used to be that between-innings breaks were only about a minute long, even in the post-season. The players jogged out to their positions at the same time that the opposing team's players jogged in, the pitcher took 8 warm-ups, the ball went around the horn while the batter stepped in, and off they went. The players dictated the pace of the breaks and TV had to accommodate that. Now it's the other way around. I believe breaks are now 2:30. With 16 or 17 breaks per game that adds over a half hour to each game.
  16. spinowner
    Wildepitch? That's a gnu one on me.
  17. spinowner
    Chuck Tanner was traded from Pittsburgh to Oakland when he was a manager.
  18. spinowner
    http://www.startribune.com/mlb-players-union-agrees-to-pitchless-intentional-walks/414488563/ Nooooo!
  19. spinowner
    Points well taken. To me, altering the size of the strike zone and the height of the mound are tweaking around the edges (as long as it's done the way I say it should be ). Granting automatic bases on balls goes past that line.
  20. spinowner
    It's not if Buxton will take over the lead-off spot it's when. He'll have a consistent first half and will be at the top of the order by the middle of June. And he'll have five inside-the-park home runs this season.
  21. spinowner
    I'm pretty sure it was 2008. It was when we were neck-and-neck with the White Sox, losing in game 163 by a 1-0 score as the result of a monster blast by Thome.
  22. spinowner
    The last time the mound was lowered was after the 1968 season, when it was set at its current height of ten inches.
  23. spinowner
    Nitpick: The rules allow the pitcher to pitch from the windup with runners on base.
  24. spinowner
    It's not just the approach of managers. The approach of batters has also evolved. Far more batters work longer counts than in years past. Blyleven and Morris decry pitchers being removed based on pitch count but pitches per game has increased over the last 30 years.
  25. spinowner
    No on decreasing the size of the strike zone. There are too many deep counts and BB's in baseball as it is, and this would exacerbate that problem. The strike zone should be larger, but to prevent an increase in strikeouts the mound should also be lowered. I'm just mystified that everyone doesn't agree with me. After all, I'm absolutely right about this.
×
×
  • Create New...