Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

d-mac

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,352

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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 d-mac

  1. d-mac
    It leads people into unnecessary arguments when they don't specify bWAR or fWAR for pitchers, which can be very significantly different.
  2. d-mac
    I left it out because Gibson had all of 51 innings. LOL LOLOLOLOL
  3. d-mac
    You could make the same argument for Miller. He has 25 more major league starts than Gibson, plus an extra half season of experience.
  4. d-mac
    Which is why I hate using WAR for pitchers. Use ERA- or FIP- instead.
  5. d-mac
    Since the beginning of 2014: Pitcher A: 75 GS, 445.1 Inn, 4.03 xFIP, 16.1 K%, 7.8 BB%, 106 ERA-, 99 FIP- Pitcher B: 78 GS, 457.2 Inn, 4.40 xFIP, 17.9 K%, 9.3 BB%, 102 ERA-, 111FIP- Which pitcher would you prefer? Pitcher A is Gibson, B is Miller. Miller has a slightly better K rate, but worse walk rate, worse groundball rate, worse HR rate, and gets to pitch in the NL. Gibson has a 69.1% LOB over the same time frame and Miller has a LOB% of 73.2. Some of that may be defense related?
  6. d-mac
    I'm glad I'm not the only one with this opinion. Poor pitch selection/strategy and subpar pitch framing I think have really held Gibson back, IMO. He has the stuff to be a much better pitcher.
  7. d-mac
    I think Miller could be a great buy-low option. However, as people pointed out Miller and Gibson have fairly similar peripherals, despite Miller's pedigree as a former prospect and the National League pitcher effect. I would deal Nunez for Miller. But I doubt the D-backs would be open to that trade since they looking to reload for next year as Nunez would probably have more appeal for a contender, plus Arizona is deep in the middle infield.
  8. d-mac
    Added commercial time is nothing unique to baseball. That's something that has been happening in ALL sports. So using the "extra commercial time" argument is a bit of a red herring.
  9. d-mac
    Uhhh, where did I blame home buyers for anything? While they could have done a better job living within their means, they were just responding based on the "carrot" of low interest rates. Did fraudulent activity happen? Well yeah, it always happens (that's what the law should be for, defense from assault, fraud, and theft) and bubble environments usually lead to increases in fraud as less savory people try to jump on the gravy train or protect their butts after it pops. But bad people did not cause the bubble in the first place- bad economic policy did. I have no idea how we even got here. What were we talking about? LOL
  10. d-mac
    I doubt most baseball fans would care one way or the other. The argument has always been framed based on relation to how non-fans of the sport view baseball. I think it's key, though, that we don't fix things that aren't broken in order to broaden the appeal. You're basing this assumption on what? Baseball is losing fans? It might be the case, but based on the revenue increases baseball has been pulling in the past 10 years, it's doubtful. With parents coming to the realization that football is dangerous to their children's' brains, fewer kids will be playing football, I see baseball and basketball being the largest beneficiaries from that.
  11. d-mac
    I too like football, college basketball (can't stand the NBA), motor sports, starting to get into soccer (my wife loves it), but my passion is baseball. It was the sport I fell in love with first. As I kind I played baseball with my dad in the back yard and one day I hope to pass that on to my son. As I played and watched the game, I grew to love the history and the traditions. I loved how it requires significant skill, unlike sports that require you to be a freak of nature, either huge and/or ridiculously gifted. I loved the individual dynamic of pitcher vs batter, yet it is still very much remains a team sport. I loved learning about the business and statistical sides of the game. And yes, I very much love it's leisurely pace. There is very much a beauty and grace in it's non-aggressive lack of in-your-face attitude found in other stick and ball sports. There is no clock to tell a team "it's over, pack up and go home." Until that 27th out, anything is possible.
  12. d-mac
    But shifts were implemented by teams in order to gain a competitive advantage, not through diktat.
  13. d-mac
    Is it? Non-baseball fans complaining about the pace-of-play relative to other sports was just as much an issue in 1990 as it is today. The recent increase in the time of game, I argue, has a relatively minimal impact, and has increased at a very slow pace year-to-year. If it is addressed radically, my interest level in baseball might wane. We should not be fixing things that are not broken in order to appeal to the Sports Center watching rube-ish masses. Fundamentally changing qualities that attracted many of us loyal fans of the game in the first place would damage the sport.
  14. d-mac
    The headset issue is not something I addressed, but that should be sped up a bit. It shouldn't take as long as it does to challenge a play and then review it. But I can't imagine having a pitch clock wouldn't affect games. A pitch clock is really no different than a play clock in football. There is a set time in which to decide on a play or a pitch and then run that play or throw that pitch. Both baseball and football, the ball is not in play outside of the play/pitch action sequence. If a team doesn't get the play or pitch off they are penalized. What's the penalty of running out the pitch clock? A balk? Plus, I might add there have been studies on the impact of time between pitches- shorter time between pitches is an advantage for the pitcher, and a longer time between pitches is a benefit to the hitter. That dynamic between the pitcher and batter changes.
  15. d-mac
    I know you didn't say that and I don't mean to put words into your mouth. I do think a pitch clock very much affects how the game is played. Shot clocks in basketball and play clocks in football absolutely affect games.
  16. d-mac
    Again I think it's a non-issue.
  17. d-mac
    Again, making rules changes for greater "entertainment" value generally have not worked that well in the past in other sports. I'm all for rules that increase player/fan safety. And for changes that eliminate margins of error in officiating (replays, and hopefully a computerized strike zone). What I am against is rule changes that change the parameters of the game. What makes baseball unique relative to other stick and ball sports is that there is no clock or allotted time in which to complete a game.
  18. d-mac
    If we're talking about marginal returns context matters. There are diminishing returns here. The impact of an 8% return is a lot less if you have $100 million vs $100K. If the game was an hour long the impact of an additional 5 minutes is greater than 15 minutes.
  19. d-mac
    My point is does it matter? If we end down the road of pitch clocks and limiting pitching changes we're on a slippery slope. Trying to be like other sports will ruin what makes baseball appealing to its fans- its uniqueness.
  20. d-mac
    Since when have kids ever had long attention spans? I have an infant at home. He has the attention span of a goldfish, but that is because he is an infant, not because of technology (oooh scary!).
  21. d-mac
    I don't think changing the pace of the game will not attract new fans. It'll just alienate the actual fans if you make the game less recognizable.
  22. d-mac
    I think you are mixing up median and average. The average in 2016 is 3 hours, 4 min. The median or middle length game is likely shorter, since as you say, very few are less than 2 hrs and 45 min. Games on the long end (typically high scoring, or extra inning games) will skew the average higher while not affecting the median.
  23. d-mac
    If you are concerned about attention span then we should make baseball 4 innings long. the marginal effect of 15 minutes on a game that lasts 180 minutes is basically zero.
  24. d-mac
    Again it's 15 minutes. And why should it matter that it's average? How the heck else are you supposed to compare game length between years? You could compare median length of games. I would hypothesize that median game length is actually shorter than the average length, because games on the long end would skew the average for a longer time. I.E., more games between 2.5hrs-3hrs vs 3-3.5hrs, but there are a lot more games 3.5+ than under 2.5.
  25. d-mac
    When you are talking about a 180 minute game it's not.
×
×
  • Create New...