Butera needs to takes some ESL classes so he can fix Blacksie.

I think Blackburn needs to try chewing gum.

 

And if he's already chewing gum, switch flavors.

Oh, good, the bullpen has the game now.

Butera needs to takes some ESL classes so he can fix Blacksie.

That is why Blackie is struggling, he doesn't have the real starting catcher out there to calm him down, tell him to keep the ball low, mix his pitches...you know the stuff pitchers learn in high school.

Talent is a necessary condition of success but not always sufficient. Look at team USA basketball from prior years. All the talent in the world and awfully clumsy and bad at times.

 

Were talking about a 162 SS while you're bring up USA Baseketball and what a 7-8 game tourny. NTM baseketball is a team sport where flow and teamwork matter a ton. Those things aren't that important in baseball, atleast not important enough to sink a talented roster.

After today's performance, I can't wait for tomorrow's game.

How did the Texas Rangers learn how to win after being garbage for all those years. Did Ronnie Wash bust out some 8balls and get everyone to believe? Or did they finally gather a talented enough roster to get outta the basement?

 

How did the Pirates finally start winning, was it Clint Hurdles doing naked laps in the clubhouse? Or did they hit on some high picks like Walker, McCutchon and mades some good trades to finally piece together a rotation?

But that took 20 years. You are comfortable with that approach, I think we can do better that waiting out 20 years of crap baseball in order to be competitive in the 21st. Sill waiting on the placebo effect since you continue to ignorantly ridicule and dismiss the mental activity.

You're kinda missing the original argument, which was whether the best way to get back to success was to completely bottom out the team for several years or not.

 

Talent is a necessary condition of success but not always sufficient. Look at team USA basketball from prior years. All the talent in the world and awfully clumsy and bad at times.

No, I didn't miss it, whichever way you do it the only way to be successful is to have enough talent. I think what's being missed is what quantifies talent.

Talent is all that matters, in any sport, period.

The Oakland A's are tied with the Angles after roughly 100 games. Too small of a sample size? Talent is important, but it is not even close to all that matters.

But that took 20 years. You are comfortable with that approach, I think we can do better that waiting out 20 years of crap baseball in order to be competitive in the 21st. Sill waiting on the placebo effect since you continue to ignorantly ridicule and dismiss the mental activity.

It took 20 years cause they couldn't produce a lick of pitching for that all. This isn't ****ing hard to understand, if you don't have a talented roster then you're going to lose games. But if you draft, trade and sign well and put together a good team then you'll win. They made a great trade of Teix, they started to finally produce some pitching and a smart and progressive front office took over, that's why the Rangers win not some stupid-ass "winning culture"

 

That's it, that's all there is to this.

For one thing, mentality is a talent.

 

If the Twins shouldn't tear down the team and start over, what should they do? Continue to invest in cheap free agents as they've been doing?

 

How much closer to contention do you think the Twins are than their record would suggest?

The Oakland A's are tied with the Angles after roughly 100 games. Too small of a sample size? Talent is important, but it is not even close to all that matters.

And talent will win out, let's reconvene in September.

It doesn't have anything to do with "leaning how to win" Teams with talent win and teams without talent lose.

"baseketball is a team sport where flow and teamwork matter a ton. Those things aren't that important in baseball, atleast not important enough to sink a talented roster."

 

Which is it? Does belief and mental approach have something to do with winning or not?

The Oakland A's are tied with the Angles after roughly 100 games. Too small of a sample size? Talent is important, but it is not even close to all that matters.

Never mind the A's going on a unsustainable run of winning like 8 or 9 games by one run.

Yes, talent is a necessary component of success, but it is not a guarantee of success. That talent also has to be fit into a system that allows it become more than the sum of the individual parts. You need team chemistry and synergy. This debate reminds me of the 1980 winter olympics and the U.S. hockey team. Herb Brooks didn't pick the most talented players at the training camp, he picked the players that would best fit into the system he was going to build. Did they have individual talent? Absolutely. But purely on an individual basis they were NOT the most talented hockey players at Lake Placid. Put together in the right way, though, they did become the most talented team in those games.

"baseketball is a team sport where flow and teamwork matter a ton. Those things aren't that important in baseball, atleast not important enough to sink a talented roster."

 

Which is it? Does belief and mental approach have something to do with winning or not?

The mental approach and understanding of any game is a talent, it's not voodoo.

No, I didn't miss it, whichever way you do it the only way to be successful is to have enough talent. I think what's being missed is what quantifies talent.

You just missed it again. No is arguing that talent isn't required for success. "whichever way you do it" IS what the argument is about.

So, If I have this correctly the most talented team wins the world series every year? Have the Yankee's just bought the wrong talent?

"baseketball is a team sport where flow and teamwork matter a ton. Those things aren't that important in baseball, atleast not important enough to sink a talented roster."

 

Which is it? Does belief and mental approach have something to do with winning or not?

This is the last time I'm going to say this.

 

I'm sure somewhere just like everything we all do, there's a mental approach to the game. But you or I have no idea what so ever how that effects a player on a given day. We don't know what losing does, we don't know what winning does, we don't know jack ****.

 

So at the end of the day the only thing you can judge off is talent, talented teams win games and non-talented teams lose games. That's it, I'm done...slag off.

So, If I have this correctly the most talented team wins the world series every year? Have the Yankee's just bought the wrong talent?

 

You can't judge what's going to happen in a 5 or 7 games sample size. Anyone can beat anyone in a short series...except the Twins.

I can't wait until someone chimes in and defends Blackie this time around. Something like.....'when healthy, Blackburn is a solid fourth or fifth starter on a good team. He just needs to settle down and find his groove, and he will be just like he was back in 08 and 09.'

So, If I have this correctly the most talented team wins the world series every year? Have the Yankee's just bought the wrong talent?

No, but the most talented teams do have the tendency to make the playoffs, where short series are a completely different animal.

The mental approach and understanding of any game is a talent, it's not voodoo.

To now lump talent with a winning attitude/previous success/mental fortitude/and all mental/and all other tough to measure but no less real causes of success at this point is sophistry. So is Liriano talented or not?

I can't wait until someone chimes in and defends Blackie this time around. Something like.....'when healthy, Blackburn is a solid fourth or fifth starter on a good team. He just needs to settle down and find his groove, and he will be just like he was back in 08 and 09.'

Be sure to tune in for Gardy's post game interview!

One could argue that is why the short series are so much fun, much harder to predict the outcome.

When I look at what the Twins did this last offseason to try and right the ship, I'm seeing a lot of similarities to the 2000s Royals.

 

We're not that far away, we just need to pick up a few mid-level free agents. Let's go get Gil Meche, Brett Tomko, Jose Guillen and Juan Cruz.

 

They're all decent players, but they're stopgaps that don't fix the problem.

Edited July 25, 201214 yr by Boom Boom

Herb Brooks didn't pick the most talented players at the training camp, he picked the players that would best fit into the system he was going to build.

First off were talking a one game sample size, replay that game 100 times and the Russians win 99 of them.

 

Secondly, isn't picking players that fit best in a system still about talent? He picked the players that would succeed in the system he was running or offense or whatever the **** hockey does.

I don't have gamecenter or anything on so I can't see where they tracked; I was just going by what I happened to catch on replays for hits. It looked to me like some of them were kept down in the zone and to the sides of the plate, and yet still got hammered.

 

That last homer, however, was a different matter.

There is no silver lining to be found in this guy. Stop looking...

When I look at what the Twins did this last offseason to try and right the ship, I'm seeing a lot of similarities to the 2000s Royals.

 

We're not that far away, we just need to pick up a few mid-level free agents. Let's go get Gil Meche, Brett Tomko, Jose Guillen and Juan Cruz. They're all decent players, but they're stopgaps that don't fix the problem.

Last off season, most the people I know, blamed the Twins record on injuries and some genuinely thought it was a simple fix away. This season it is much easier to see this team isn't a quick fix from contention and hopefully management makes decisions accordingly.

Yes, talent is a necessary component of success, but it is not a guarantee of success. That talent also has to be fit into a system that allows it become more than the sum of the individual parts. You need team chemistry and synergy. This debate reminds me of the 1980 winter olympics and the U.S. hockey team. Herb Brooks didn't pick the most talented players at the training camp, he picked the players that would best fit into the system he was going to build. Did they have individual talent? Absolutely. But purely on an individual basis they were NOT the most talented hockey players at Lake Placid. Put together in the right way, though, they did become the most talented team in those games.

Anything can happen in one game, in a short tournament, especially in hockey. Anyway, the US beat the Finns to win the gold. In the mid to late nineties Canada decided they would go down the picking the players who best fit the system road in international hockey and they sucked. Once they decided to just take the best players and work the system to fit them, they have been much more successful.

 

Talent first, everything else next.

To now lump talent with a winning attitude/previous success/mental fortitude/and all mental/and all other tough to measure but no less real causes of success at this point is sophistry. So is Liriano talented or not?

Apparently not or we wouldn't be looking to trade him.