KirbyDome89

Where is my knee jerk reaction? I think it was very clear, if you follow those posts back, that my issue is with the implementation of perceived "justice." I'm not claiming I'm being attacked, and I'm not referencing any of my personal posts. Honestly, I'm not sure where you got that idea. You're misrepresenting what I said. There's a massive difference between saying Latin players may face racial injustice and going after another poster because you've (not you personally Brock) decided their critique falls into that category. Telling somebody their post is full of ugly racial stereotypes is in essence calling them a racist so yes, in that regard it's splitting hairs. Again, I shouldn't have to say this, but this isn't about overtly racist posts not is it a defense of them; it's about posts that, at worst, could be considered in a grey area, and whether an attack on them is justified simply because another poster feels a certain way about them. You've beat the drum for "this isn't about you, it's about the collective," which isn't being debated, so I find it confusing that you're sanctioning attacks at an individual level. That's precisely what was being promoted and that's exactly why I pushed back. I truly have no idea why anybody would support a structure where an individual can label you or some extension of you as X, the label grants that individual license to do Y, and Y is justified because that person labeled you as X. It's textbook circular logic, and that's exactly what the posts I was quoting were advocating for. If you're passionately opposed to X, I suppose I can understand why this type of structure, no matter how misguided, receives support, the problem is the fluidity of X. One day you're fighting against X, the next day you're being called X. The "I'm going to attack anything I think might be X, and if some of it turns out to not be, then shrug, I'll still get a few," mentality only exacerbates the irrationality. We shouldn't accept that the level of disapproval excuses the subsequent magnitude of rebuke. To me these last two paragraphs are universal. On your second point... You've said that a discussion is being avoided, but the entire second half of your post is just a rebranding of earlier posts you made. If the idea is to just tell everybody to have personal responsibility and be introspective then we're attending a lecture. I doubt you'll find an argument about the existence of a racial component in American institutions. If that's the discussion you want to have then by all means start down that road.

I've seen more than a few posts criticizing the Twins for "rolling over," and "looking lifeless," during this bad stretch of games. I wouldn't say I agree with either of those assessments but it makes 0 sense to get on Duffey for being pissed at a demotion if all week part of the issue for the Twins was that they were "too flat."

Mid 70s might be a stretch but apart from a 20 win August they're under .500 for year in 17'. If we ignore 16' for the moment, they needed 20 wins in May of 15' to hang around in the WC chase with 83 total Ws, and they needed 20 wins last August to claim the WC at 85 Ws. They don't have to apologize for those great months, and I absolutely agree that they don't have to give any wins back, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't concerning that they've needed monster months each of those years to pull a team that hovered below .500 just above that line and into WC contention. It's a long year, and they can string a few decent/good months together and erase this early hole they've dug. To me, that's going to be the mark of improvement. I would agree with Wsnydes, 17' seems like a long shot to be repeated, simply because I'm not sure banking on a big winning streak is a good bet.

Agreed 100% on that first paragraph. I'd love to see the best pitcher(s) used in the most important situations so I have no issue with fluid bullpen roles. Absolutely agree Rodney allows way too many runners to reach. At some point that catches up to you, and so far this year that has too often been the case. That's the big issue I see with the role you proposed for him. So far he's been great at creating messes. I just have 0 faith in him being able to come into a game with runners on and not add to the problem. Jay was supposed to be that electric arm. Here's to hoping I guess.

I'm not arguing that he's the worst pitcher they have in the pen or that it's out of the question to show patience. IMO there's a difference between being patient and digging for ways to excuse his poor performance though. I agree, if he wasn't "closing," he'd be a little more tolerable. You're right, handing him the 9th and refusing to move away from him while he's struggling is definitely part of the problem, but I think Rodney himself is big part as well. Hildenberger ect. have been much worse, but if that's the reference point we're using then who isn't going to look good?

I'm not saying it wasn't a cheap hit, but IMO a hit is a hit. We never go back and assign pitchers runs that should have scored because of hard contact or great defensive plays so I'm not really inclined to cut them a break on IF hits either. Rodney coughed up a three run lead without recording a single out. It doesn't sound like you're absolving him of the outing but a few are, and it's baffling. I'll fully admit that I hate watching him pitch at this point, and I'm sure that contributes to my lack of confidence but I'm so sick of the automatic 1-2 runners per inning. I was honestly surprised he didn't blow yesterday's game after the two BBs. What some call the "Rodney experience," I call struggling to get through innings. Kudos to you for having zen like patience with him, I just can't stand watching him "close," anymore.

The defense didn't give up the hit that followed the error, and they didn't allow the homer that followed the hit. Regardless of where the pitch was, Sanchez hit out. That's on Rodney.

I didn't think I would be this tired of Rodney this early, but yeah, I'm there....

Aaaaaaaaaand we're off....Rodney starting an inning as he usually does....

This. It was a big gripe last year too. Instead of scrap heap filler they might should be finding out what they have in the minors. If organizational guys can't hack it or they really think they found a gem on the outside, then fine, turn to the waiver wire. At least by giving their own players the first shot they'll have a better idea of who might actually be able to contribute heading into each season, which helps in making FA and Rule V decisions. Agreed on the "cuteness," of some of these moves.

On cue

Gennett knows he can use his glove and not just his foot to field that short hop right? Twins fans thought they had it rough this last week.....imagine being a Reds fan....

I heard he was complaining of oblique tightness in the dugout.... DL stint part II

Yep a RH 4th OFer would be nice right about now. Maybe all the "flexibility," they have next year will make room for one.

I'll nitpick and say I still think Vargas could've given the Twins roughly the same type of production Morrison provided in 12'-16'. That's not a ringing endorsement of Vargas. Morrison wasn't a terrible upside gamble, but the Twins weren't hurting for a LH 1B/DH and there was much more to suggest Morrison's 17' was the exception rather than the norm. I preferred to see the money spent elsewhere.

No, you're right, I wasn't trying to say that BABIP is entirely in Rodney's control. For the most part it isn't, i.e. the luck and defense aspects are out of a pitcher's control. I was just pointing out that there is an aspect of pitcher performance, which is controllable, and that's part of the calculation as well. Agreed, BABIP will certainly move downward, and BBs don't have to jump up, although I wouldn't bet on that.

How is that a misuse of stats? We'll disagree about about BB/9 and K/9 being garbage. I'm not arguing about the validity of a SSS if that's what you're getting at with numbers being skewed. The point I'm making is that we can't assume underperformance normalizes but overperformance doesn't. BABIP isn't completely out of the control of a pitcher. That 3 run shot was a rocket. Hard hit balls will inflate BABIP (ask Phil Hughes.) That doesn't mean I think it's staying north of even .310 but I certainly don't think we can simply brush off Rodney's current BABIP as just poor defense or bad luck. I'm also not convinced that Rodney, at 41, has suddenly discovered control and is going to keep his BB rate down. I'm not sure what a low BB rate w/ high BABIP vs. a higher BB rate w/ normalized BABIP looks like in terms of runners on a per inning basis. TL;DR: Rodney allows too many runners to reach.

Rodney doesn't record a single out, gives up two hits, including a 3 run homer, but this one isn't on him? How bad does he have to be before we can find fault?

His walk rate is significantly lower than previous seasons, so if we're counting on a dip in BABIP then we should also expect an increase in BB/9. Rodney just flat out allows too many batters to reach base. Getting burned is inevitable when that happens. Honestly, Idk if we're seeing a 41 year old declining, or just a "rough patch," because you're right, he's thrown fewer than 7 innings, but good lord I'm already tired of the automatic 1-2 baserunners every time he's handed the ball.

Or one Rule V selection plus FA pitchers.

So you're saying I've been doing it wrong this whole time?

Do you think Bard, Burdi and Chargois were destined to be moved regardless of whether MN selected anyone in the Rule V?

Those are strong assumptions to make based on a post(s) that can easily be viewed as fair criticism. I might be, or I could be completely missing something. Ultimately I strongly disagree with the logic of the setup that was advocated and I think the application of it leaves behind a great deal collateral damage.

I've never personally had that happen, but the posts I was responding to seem to imply that the goal is to drive out posters/posts they deem racially motivated.

I don't know how this is even remotely controversial. Am I supposed to be ok with posters judging what posts are and aren't racially motivated, and then using their own unsupported assessment to attack other posters/posts that they themselves have labeled unfounded? If it's clear cut i.e. Sano eating fried chicken, then feel free to call it out if you can even get to it before a mod takes it down, but those aren't the posts we're talking about. Honestly, can't you see the issue with the self appointed judge, jury, executioner setup, especially when the justification for attack is as groundless as the OP is in the eyes of those attacking? Lets say I criticize Rosario for not hustling on a play where he very clearly didn't hustle. Another poster decides that I'm falling into the lazy minority stereotype with my criticism. That poster decides to question my post, and based on their judgement of my explanation, which I would add, I don't owe, that poster can now decide whether or not to attack me until he's driven me from the thread, and those attacks are completely warranted based solely on the judgment of the attacker. Nobody should be comfortable with that setup. I'm not saying criticizing posts is off limits, but misplaced criticism shouldn't simply be excused or shrugged off because those issuing it feel a certain way.