Hicks, with the bat, has absolutely been terrible. Putrid and still not driving the ball. He's been an absolutely outstanding fielder, however.

Well to be fair he drove one into the seats at a pretty opportune time on Wednesday, but I hear you.

 

Well to be fair he drove one into the seats at a pretty opportune time on Wednesday, but I hear you.

 

Absolutely!  It was great to see, but I haven't seen any noticeable difference from 2015 Hicks at the plate and the last two years of failure.

 

In CF I'm not even sure it's the same dude.  He's been incredible.

 

...but I haven't seen any noticeable difference from 2015 Hicks at the plate and the last two years of failure.

You mean besides the drastic drop in walks, so far. The lone double and lone HR is pretty much all that saves his mighty .240 BA from being an empty one.

 

I agree, KLaw goes a little overboard sometimes though.  I'm not sure why he does chats, he doesn't seem to be able to handle anything that resembles a disagreement and the point of a chat is to interact with baseball fans who, duh, have a team bias usually.  That being said, I don't think he dislikes the Twins, I just think he dislikes everything.  He doesn't seem like a person who enjoys many things, even baseball.

 

I don't think is at all that he "can't handle disagreement", I think he has a different approach to talking than you do. And no, he doesn't dislike everything, that's unbelievably inaccurate. Try reading his blog.......it's mindboggling that anyone could think what you typed is true.

 

In my estimation, the problem is he's never, ever wrong. About anything.

 

Except that whole Berrios thing, and all the other times in chats he admits he was wrong.

 

I don't think is at all that he "can't handle disagreement", I think he has a different approach to talking than you do. And no, he doesn't dislike everything, that's unbelievably inaccurate. Try reading his blog.......it's mindboggling that anyone could think what you typed is true.

 

Well it makes sense if they don't actually read him.

My observation on Law is that he gets locked in strongly in a pretty set and narrow view of things (relating to baseball) and takes a long time to move off this opinions. This can be good and bad.

 

I like a lot of his stuff, but I get a little annoyed with smug interactions, excessive snark and cherry picking data to fit narratives I don't find all that compelling. But you take the good with the bad, like anyone.

 

My observation on Law is that he gets locked in strongly in a pretty set and narrow view of things (relating to baseball) and takes a long time to move off this opinions. This can be good and bad.

 

I like a lot of his stuff, but I get a little annoyed with smug interactions, excessive snark and cherry picking data to fit narratives I don't find all that compelling. But you take the good with the bad, like anyone.

 

He can definitely come across as smug at time, agreed. I'd rather listen to a smart smug guy than about 90% of tv sports' announcers. Others' mileage may vary on that.....

 

My observation on Law is that he gets locked in strongly in a pretty set and narrow view of things (relating to baseball) and takes a long time to move off this opinions. This can be good and bad.

 

I like a lot of his stuff, but I get a little annoyed with smug interactions, excessive snark and cherry picking data to fit narratives I don't find all that compelling. But you take the good with the bad, like anyone.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on Law. He's a smart guy but changing his mind is a slow and laborious process. As you said, that can be good or bad depending on the situation.

 

But his chats grate on me. He's overly abrasive so much of the time and it serves no purpose other than his own self-gratification. He's quite smart and often right but there's no reason to beat down others for sport, which he seems to delight in doing.

This is a good example of Law being a jerk for no reason. He starts off strong by saying "he's doing better than I expected, probably doesn't have a lot left in the tank" but then takes an unnecessary swing at "clubhouse presence". Why, Keith? Dismissing clubhouse presence of a veteran when the club is playing out of their mind is so unnecessary and seems a bit like sour grapes.

 

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:12964365&startTime=01:08

 

"I like it if you're a nice guy, I like it more if you're a nice guy who hits."

 

Well, uh... Keith, Torii Hunter is hitting.

Would we tolerate this kind of discussion of Terry Ryan, or a poster, and make assumptions about their motives and what kind of human being they were/are?

 

Because we've certainly been discouraged from doing this in the past.....

 

Would we tolerate this kind of discussion of Terry Ryan, or a poster, and make assumptions about their motives and what kind of human being they were/are?

 

Because we've certainly been discouraged from doing this in the past.....

I don't know if that has stopped people from doing it. it is kind of the curse of being a public figure.

 

if I recall, the objection was to the same thing being brought up repeatedly in unrelated threads.

He can definitely come across as smug at time, agreed. I'd rather listen to a smart smug guy than about 90% of tv sports' announcers. Others' mileage may vary on that.....

can you pull a quote or link us to anything smart he has actually said about the Twins this season? I suspect a lot of people like JB and myself only run across guys like Law when someone links to an article. The links are appreciated btw. But cut through the chaff and all Baumann and Law basically said was "since there is no one putting up great numbers, it must therefore be unsustainable, and by the way, run differential." Which anyone on these boards could have told you.

 

I don't know if that has stopped people from doing it. it is kind of the curse of being a public figure.

 

if I recall, the objection was to the same thing being brought up repeatedly in unrelated threads.

 

I guess, and I am not saint on this topic, I don't see how it moves the conversation forward (nor can I believe the comment on "he doesn't like anything".

I'm not a saint on any topic.

 

One of the nicer things about casual conversation is that moving forward is not a requirement. Rather like dancing, I suppose.

Never mind, me neither, enough bytes have been used here on Keith Law already

Randball Stu at Twinkietown has dug up the statistical truth here:

 

http://www.twinkietown.com/2015/5/29/8685445/advanced-metrics-say-twins-are-actually-ultimate-frisbee-team

 

To summarize, stats indicate they are not in fact annoying douche-bags who smell of gym mat disinfectant, but rather an ultimate frisbee team from Southern Illinois.

When I read that bit about Aaron Hicks, I thought it meant he's been terrible since he first came up in 2013, not referring to just the small sample in 2015... I think saying Hicks has been "terrible" in that context is still a little harsh, but not without some merit.

 

Actually, the one thing I think was a little off base was the idea that Molitor was using Perkins more wisely. Perk is generally pitching in the highest leverage situations, but that's simply because it's always the ninth.  Baumann even commented more than once that the Twins played in a lot of one run games, so it doesn't take a genius to figure out that in a one run game, the 9th is always going to be a high leverage situation, well unless it's only a one run game because the closer himself made it that way. 

 

Not to take anything away from Molitor, it's just that other than the couple times he got an extra out in the 8th, I can't think of one instance where Gardy wouldn't have done the exact same thing with Perkins.

 

I don't know, Gardy brought Perk in for a 4 out save once last year, Molitor's already done it twice.  Assuming he does it a few more times this year I would qualify this as different usage.

 

Hicks, with the bat, has absolutely been terrible.  Putrid and still not driving the ball.  He's been an absolutely outstanding fielder, however.  

 

I wouldn't argue with you over the results but he definitely looks more confident at the plate.  I don't know if his new approach will yield significantly better results in a larger sample size, but watching him at the plate this year I'm a little more hopeful that it will.

Baumann's article echoes many other national articles going up about the Twins right now.

 

No, not in sentiment. Rather, perspective.

 

Simply put, within many of these articles it becomes painfully clear that the author hasn't actually SEEN the Twins play this year. Aaron Hicks' overall numbers don't jump off the page - he's been "terrible". Trevor May's numbers don't scream 'ace' so he's been "below average" and the Twins' run differential is worse than the Royals, so this cannot be sustainable.

 

In reality, we all know that Hicks' new approach appears to be working (and his defensive contributions have been greatly appreciated) and Trevor May has been growing into a more and more formidable pitcher with every start. Finally, when you go -29 in run differential to start the season, it's going to take a LOT of good baseball to bring that number back to respectability.

 

I'm a stats guy first and foremost, but purely looking at stats without context leads to some conclusions that are short of what's really happening. That's what this Grantland piece feels like to me. I don't think it's worth getting riled up over though - if the Twins keep winning, the national media will eventually HAVE to watch. If they don't - they all get to say "told ya so".

 

 

 

I'm a stats guy first and foremost, but purely looking at stats without context leads to some conclusions that are short of what's really happening. That's what this Grantland piece feels like to me. I don't think it's worth getting riled up over though - if the Twins keep winning, the national media will eventually HAVE to watch. If they don't - they all get to say "told ya so".

I think what Jeff said in today's Fangraph's chat:

 

Q: Are the 2015 Twins this year’s version of the 2014 Orioles? They seem very light on talent but the usual markers of a lucky-and-not-actually-good team don’t really seem to be there.

 

A: Last year’s Orioles finished with a BaseRuns winning percentage of .561. This year’s Twins are at .435. Put another way, the Twins are tied for the second-worst BaseRuns winning percentage in the American League. I don’t want to suggest that I think BaseRuns are everything, but I do think the indicators are very much present that the Twins are a fluke.

 

THEN he said, and the part I want to emphasis, ' I know that’s not very fun, but the consolation for Twins fans is that the team is winning, and as long as the team is winning, it doesn’t really matter what the nerds are talking about'

 

I try to pay attention to and understand all stats out there, but I have to admit that I never heard of BaseRuns until it became the go to reference of how the Twins are doomed.

I don't understand how the conclusion of the national articles is that the Twins are a fluke and they will inevitably regress.   Even if you grant that this current roster's W/L is out of sync with the numbers, that does not mean they will regress or that this will be the same roster a month from now.

 

By virtue of a loaded farm system, this team has players that will either move up or be dealt to fill gaps.

 

While we have no idea what the future holds - it is a pretty simplistic analysis to say that the Twins are pretenders.  

 

 

I didn't say it earlier but I think the Grantland article is pretty spot-on once you suffer through the first two paragraphs of "Dude, are you ****ing drunk right now?".

 

In reality, we all know that Hicks' new approach appears to be working

 

Based on what?  He has actually managed to be worse in many regards.  If you want to attack the author for not having watched the team, Hicks isn't the place to do it.  He has been terrible, we're all just so happy to see the defense that we're missing his abysmal performance at the plate.

 

I don't understand how the conclusion of the national articles is that the Twins are a fluke and they will inevitably regress.   Even if you grant that this current roster's W/L is out of sync with the numbers, that does not mean they will regress or that this will be the same roster a month from now.

 

By virtue of a loaded farm system, this team has players that will either move up or be dealt to fill gaps.

 

While we have no idea what the future holds - it is a pretty simplistic analysis to say that the Twins are pretenders.  

 

Are you talking about the club carrying 13 pitchers, including Tim Stauffer? The idea that the Twins will have an overhauled roster a month from now is just... odd and, well, plainly false. That the Twins will regress is the only possible conclusion any knowledgeable observer could draw. 

 

 

I try to pay attention to and understand all stats out there, but I have to admit that I never heard of BaseRuns until it became the go to reference of how the Twins are doomed.

 

OPS for and against gives you the exact same reality of how lucky the Twins have been. BaseRuns takes those hits, walks, etc., and calculates an expected run total, which is more handy than looking at a team's AVG/OBP/SLG slash line.

Edited May 30, 201511 yr by drivlikejehu

As near as I can tell, the national press is far more concerned with what Josh Hamilton ate for breakfast than anything concerning the AL Central divisional race.

 

As near as I can tell, the national press is far more concerned with what Josh Hamilton ate for breakfast than anything concerning the AL Central divisional race.

 

Bryce Harper, too.

Adding on to the "not really having the feel he's watched the Twins," the opening paragraphs of his article were just odd. I get the funny self-deprecating story, but choosing to alienate all wrestlers as like "Donnie" seems kinda geographically unwise.

 

Being that Minnesota is one of the best wrestling states HS and college, and the participation rate being higher than hockey even here. I'm sure it was a random analogy he chose, but another example of not having his finger on the pulse of MN in general. I'm guessing I wasn't the only wrestler that read this and rolled his eyes. But again, he wasn't really wrong about his analysis of the Twins this far.