KirbyDome89

I don't think LaMarre has a lot of long term believers but he's certainly hitting the ball better than a handful of guys right now so I don't see why getting him some ABs at the expense of those struggling is a bad thing. Robbie isn't hitting well, but he also has about half the ABs that Morrison does to start the season. Morrison's only real value is mashing, and if he's not producing extra base hits while simultaneously beating balls into the shift & striking out he's going to continue to be a black hole in the middle of the lineup. That doesn't mean I think he'll stay at an OPS under .300 for the year, but 3-44 is a little concerning. At this point I don't think it's just a slow start.

LaMarre: Still hitting Morrison: Still not hitting

We (you and I) or those involved in this thread can certainly agree that generalizations are just that, and they aren't applicable at an individual level, but I'm also not going to pretend like these generalizations are harmless/not abused. Individuals are never told to "check their privilege?" A liberal professor of biology and his wife who held a similar position weren't recently forced out of a university for their "racism," after objecting to the idea of a day where whites were unwelcome on the campus? We're at the point where the white director of "3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri," (great movie btw) is being accused of "racism," because the racist cop he wrote into the movie wasn't "racist," enough, i.e. he had the audacity to render the officer redeeming qualities. This stuff isn't fabricated. It stems from an inability to understand what these generalizations actually are and unfortunately the mischaracterizations, purposeful or not, are used to indict at both a group and individual level.

What tangent is it that you think I'm on? That's an honest question. I don't think the linkage is something that should be discounted. IMO it isn't as simple as just letting go. I wasn't speaking specifically about the treatment of latin players in my previous post but we can use it as an example. If we're working with a sample consisting of critiques regarding latin players, how can we make any sort of definitive statement about racially motivated critiques unless we have some idea as to which of those critiques fall into that category. Secondly, how can we differentiate between valid and racial criticism unless we're able to identify which criticism is valid? If the idea is to ignore those nuances, look at all criticisms as a collective, and say "We have a problem," then you're asking for difficulty in attempting a productive discussion. We agree that it's possible to speak in general terms without indicting everyone, but the issue is that these general terms seem to morph into an indictment of everyone. I know white privilege has been beaten to death here, but I think it's a perfect example. We've acknowledged that the term makes sweeping generalizations about a race, and it can't be assigned at the level of an individual, but we're told it's necessary to talk about an issue that can only be quantified in aggregate. The problem is that this term is far too frequently used on an individual level. Of course, when that's pointed out the definition conveniently shrinks back to "not you, but the collective." That's the point I was making about the idea of considering A apart from B being abused; if we're eliminating the notion that responses may not be racially motivated even while acknowledging that's true, we're going to arrive at a point where criticism in general is regarded as racial, and I think that's precisely how this thread came into existence. This isn't a novel idea. We don't have to look hard to find racial undertones being thrown around where they don't belong. Fairly recently in our lab I had to explain to an undergrad that the fact that this individual's antibody stain was unsuccessful and another undergrad's turned out well, did not mean the protocol I wrote for them was racially biased. I understand that these kids are 20-21 years old, but the point I'm making is that while you may be capable of viewing issues strictly through a racial lenses and then readjusting your filters, others may not have or may choose not to utilize that ability. Does that mean we can't talk in general terms? No. But I don't think ignoring B to talk about A necessarily lends itself to having honest conversation. Speaking about strawman arguments, I'll point out the notion that some in this thread believe that nobody is allowed to even suggest racial prejudice exists is one. Another one would be the idea that holding both sides equally accountable for civil discourse is the same as one side demanding a conversation be held on their terms. One more would be the idea that contemplating whether it's best include or exclude certain variables from discussion constitutes a strawman.

You're quoting one sentence from a post that was 4 paragraphs in length. The point I made was that if we're asking for fair and honest conversation we can't have a dynamic where a group of posters takes it upon themselves to "call out," posts and insinuate they're racist, thus forcing the author(s) of said posts to explain themselves to a level deemed satisfactory by those who took issue regarding what was said. It's the equivalent of "I've deemed you a sinner, now bow to receive your forgiveness." I understand that you're talking about setting aside the notion that racism might not be at play. The problem is that for some setting that fact aside means acknowledging that it exists and momentarily overlooking it to examine a single aspect while for others it's a pass to ignore it altogether. It's this latter group that feels all too comfortable stamping labels on words or actions; often where they might they not belong. Allowing for that type of dynamic to stand does nothing to actually promote dialogue. Ultimately what we're talking about is the ability to have a productive conversation regarding race. At least to me that seems to be a large part of what this thread has become, and I certainly feel that my response in pertinent to that topic. Call it a strawman if you'd like, but I believe that the idea of "set aside A to truly see B," may not be possible if A and B are inextricably linked, and if it is utilized, it's taken advantage of by some.

I've been a fairly staunch "Sano defender," and I completely agree that all the claims regarding work ethic, offseason workouts, weight, ect are completely unfounded. For me it's more about the lack of evidence and not a perceived racial undertone that I find infuriating. The thing is though, those posters don't owe me an explanation regarding their posts. Ted shouldn't have had to explain why his article, which pointed out mistakes Rosario did in fact make, wasn't racist. We aren't the arbiters of truth in these cases. It's one thing to disagree with somebody's take and explain why we feel that way, it's something entirely different to label that individual or their post tinged with racism and then force them to explain/defend him or herself lest the label stick. Honestly I don't think there really is much of a difference between insinuating a poster's comments are racially motivated and flat out calling them out for racism. One is a more gentle way of saying the other. You brought up the quote about whether Buxton was smart enough to hit big league pitching and I completely agree, when I saw that I cringed a bit. It's hard to read that post and not think it's racially motivated. However, I also don't believe it's a big stretch to think it might just be a more casual fan who has watched a top prospect, with all the physical tools in the world, struggle to live up to the offensive hype for 3 seasons, and now wonders if Buxton will ever "figure it out." I hate the criticism of Sano's weight. The guy is 6'4" and built like a horse. He's going to be a big dude yet so many feel he needs to check in at some arbitrary weight in order to perform. It's nonsense IMO. The Twins hold a lot of responsibility for feeding local media these weight stories, but the fact is they asked him to hit some bull*** weight and he didn't do it. I think the story was completely overblown and the Twins absolutely hung him out to dry by playing him out of position in RF and then complaining about his weight. That said, he had an entire offseason to get to a weight that was easily within reach and he didn't do it. Would it have helped him in RF? No. Should he have had to hit that weight? Probably not. In the grand scheme it's insignificant, but I don't think we can deny that it opened the door for criticism regarding weight/training methods/work ethic. Obviously this isn't an endorsement of these viewpoints but I do think others can come to those conclusions, however misguided, without necessarily being racist. Hell, if nothing else you can get a good laugh at the irony of those calling Sano lazy while arriving at that critique in arguably the most intellectually lazy way possible.

I can agree with some of this up to a point. There's no doubt that we prefer those who tend to be most like us, whether it's appearance, attitude, intelligence, ect. It doesn't take a ton of introspection to realize we surround ourselves with individuals we perceive to be similar or compatible in some way. It's also undeniable that some of these preferences or bias will unfold along racial or ethnic lines. The issue is whether implicit biases are acted upon, the context of the situation, and whether or not actual prejudice is involved. Individuals harbor all sorts of biases and stereotypes. The terms carry negative connotations but in reality they're necessary for navigating the world in which we live. Stereotypes become harmful when they turn into prejudice & then discrimination and racial prejudice is a very specific type of bias. IMO the existence of stereotypes and bias is often conflated with racial prejudice, which can then be attributed to situations as one sees fit. It's this last part that becomes the point of contention. Implicit bias certainly exists but the relationship between an unconscious bias and biased behavior isn't as cut and dry as it's all too often made out to be. There is legitimate debate in academia about how data from the Implicit Association Test is interpreted. That's a burden the social sciences shoulder more than other disciplines. I can't speak completely for Chief but that seems to be a large part of the point he's making. I think we can both agree that while a vast majority of critical posts regarding players like Sano, Buxton, ect aren't racist, it's hard to look at a quote like "Buxton isn't smart enough to figure out MLB pitching," as anything other than racial prejudice. By that same token I believe most posters who advocate strongly for social issues aren't doing it simply to get their jollies. That said, I think we've all seen posts on TD that are nothing but virtue signaling.

Yeah maybe, I have no idea how common this situation is in baseball.

I was on that train this winter. I wasn't a big fan of LaMarre making the team out of ST either, but the FO stuck him there. For me at least it isn't so much about believing LaMarre is a legitimate 4th/5th OFer, rather it's about giving him the opportunity to prove he isn't. They were willing to force him onto the 25 man because of the ST he had and if that's the case then they might as well at least try to figure out what he can actually do. I'm not saying he needs to be playing every day, but if they were confident enough to give him a roster spot I'm not sure why there's hesitation to let him have a short audition. Overall I completely agree with you that the 25th man shouldn't be a pinch runner/filler guy. You're right, the Twins will only carry 12-13 position players, two of which are catchers so in reality they're looking at 2-3 actual bench players. They need to be more than an occasional pinch hitter/runner or late inning defensive replacement. I don't think LaMarre is one of the 2-3 guys, but I also think continuing to carry him while refusing to play him is worse than finding out he isn't.

They aren't playing tonight or tomorrow and Sunday looks doubtful so I'm not sure why the move is being made right now. I'm not particularly a LaMarre believer but Kinley is the guy that needs to go. A wasted 25 man spot is a big deal, especially if they're going to carry 13 pitchers and leave the bench shorthanded.

This one is completely on the Twins. If they're willing to pay him anywhere near fair market value he'll be back. Personally I hope they do. I think the team is better with him at 1B and it would be gross to see him wear another uniform.

You have the same argument going in multiple threads now. 1. Nobody is suggesting Molitor should burn out Reed by throwing him 3 innings at a time. 2. Nobody is suggesting managers don't have a game plan. That much is abundantly clear. I'm not sure how you're arriving at those conclusions. All anybody is advocating is that the best relief pitcher is used to get the most important outs during the game. Of course managers are thinking ahead, but all game plans are subject to change. Those late game situations you want to save a guy like Reed for wont exist if you can't get through the 6th. Andrew Miller was a big part of Cleveland's WS run, and he was used exactly how some have suggested Molitor use Reed.

There is nothing more grinding than watching Duke pitch. Seriously. I don't think even he has any idea where the ball is going to end up when he lets it go.

Me neither, I thought when they signed him they were paying for Vargas-esque production with a little more offensive upside, although they also gave up the option to truly platoon at 1B. Agreed, it's too early to say we have a solid idea about how any of these guys end up.

I would say that the burliness of my liquid coat determines my threshold for cold but that's another topic. I realize the cold can play a part, and I'm not completely dismissing it out of hand, but I do think it's being applied very generously to explain away any poor performance. Yes, weather effects individuals differently, and I certainly think (hope) it might have something to do with Morrison's poor start, but I have a hard time attributing 2-27 to only adverse weather.

1. Everybody else is hitting in the same weather. 2. Yes, if he has two weeks in July where he goes 2-27 and strands a horde of baserunners people are going to gripe. 3. Yes, 9 games is too soon to panic, but he's been historically inept to start the year so some concern is warranted.

Sure, but the goal is to get to those other ABs without giving up runs. Using your best reliever gives you the best odds of that happening. Of course having the best reliever available to close out a game is nice, but you can't close a game if you're losing.

What's silly about using your best reliever in the most critical situation in the game?

It's the Phil Hughes effect. Eddie made a strong first impression and some are convinced that's the "real," Eddie even though a much larger amount of sample suggests otherwise. The guy has loads of talent, but the idea that he's a strong defensive OFer to this point is questionable to put it kindly.

Same machine. New paint job. Rebranded.

Consistently inconsistent zone tonight...

Apparently this ump wants to get out of the cold... No complaints while getting these calls but Verlander is going to be a beast with the way the zone has expanded

Doesn't most revenue from suite rentals come from corporations that have season long agreements? I'm sure there are some families or small businesses that might rent a box last minute to catch a night game but isn't that a drop in the bucket? I could be way off base on this though. I'm the guy who still uses his college ID to get cheap seats and dollar dogs on Wednesday nights.... Aren't TV rights sold as a whole? I'm not sure how much a few day games in early April dents the value of a TV package for a 162 game season. I'm playing devil's advocate here. You're right, overall the team loses money with more afternoon starts in early April. IMO it's a small concession to make for the players and fans.

Exactly. I said the same thing in the Pittsburgh game thread. They played a Wednesday evening game, in a northern city, in early April, and had to travel for a game the next day. I get that it has been unseasonably cold in the Midwest and Northeast this Spring, and bad weather games are simply unavoidable, but there are definitely ways to attempt to minimize the impact of said weather.

Were they that confident that Bard wouldn't be selected? That's an honest question. The way I view it, there are only 40 roster spots. I think it's a fair assumption that if MN had spots in addition to the 40 allowed they would've kept Bard, Chargois, and Burdi. If the Twins were intent on selecting any player in the Rule V, they knew that a 40 man spot was required, which in turn means other players will be left unprotected. In that regard I do think the loss of Burdi and Bard via the draft has something to do with the selection of Kinley. I realize they cleared space for FA signings, but those came after the Rule V. Why not keep as many players as you can, and then make corresponding 40 man moves when a target FA has actually been signed? The Chargois move was inexplicable all around. If you have some idea of what they were thinking or what that "something more," it suggested is I'm all ears.