In all seriousness, this guy is a professional. He's forgotten more about baseball than we'll ever know.

 

And he's forgotten a lot about baseball.

 

or perhaps he stopped learning about baseball back in 2000.

 

agreed, but it begins and ends with pitching.

 

I don't know. you get points for showing your work.  He might be right, but if you make 20 mistakes and get the right answer, that doesn't make you smart.

That Rosario is a real firecracker. Lots of passion.

 

Dozier hits too many HR for 2b... should move to a corner OF spot

 

Suzuki was a very cerebral player

 

#SI80sTakes

 

or perhaps he stopped learning about baseball back in 2000.

 

I didn't realize terry ryan was writing for SI these days 

Aristocratic media. 

 

They don't have to be right, they don't have to be good or have cutting edge insights.

 

They just have to produce copy for the idiots that still read their publication.

 

When was the last time they actually wrote something insightful?

 

Holy hell I can't believe how horrendous these takes are.

 

"José Berrios still hasn't turned the corner. I'm unimpressed by his ability to command the fastball" No freakin way

 

"Brian Dozier is a dead high-ball hitter, but even if he hits 30 home runs, they could lose 100 games." One year after he hit 42 home runs and they lost 103 games.

 

"This team has a chance to be the worst in the league." One year after they were the worst in the league. These are bold observations.

 

"Joe Mauer's health is in question, like always. He's an opposite-field hitter now." KEEN INSIGHT SO GOOD THEY HAVE ANONYMOUS SCOUTS TO FEED THEM THIS STUFF

 

Sorry I haven't read this whole thread and realize everyone has probably skewered this thing to bits but this is the worst thing I've read in 2017, Sports Illustrated should be completely ashamed for publishing this comment section drivel. Insulting to actual scouts everywhere.

I suspect this is one more data point that explains the rise of fan driven web sites. The author of the SI article is relatively safe from fan opprobrium. Not so when it comes to the regular writers at sites like this. 

Edited March 29, 20179 yr by Blake

or perhaps he stopped learning about baseball back in 2000.

That SI scout probably has 50 years experience in baseball. Or maybe it's one year of experience repeated 50 times. Hard to tell.

This is about what I expect of SI these days. Slightly better than Souhan, worse that Reusse.

There is more truth to what this guy wrote than it seems we can admit.

 

It's all right. The season is about to start. We will find out which is truer:

 

1) Our optimism that the young players who seem stuck in neutral (3/4 of the team) or mismatched v. what the team needs (the one marketable pitcher and one marketable position player) will collectively come together and start generating wins (in spite of really nothing changing since the last time around), or

2) This author's skepticism.

 

I would think we have all seen this rodeo before and would be leaning more to the skeptical side. In any case, the season starts soon, and I would love for the blind optimism to be correct just this once.

I don't know who this author was but by what he wrote it actually looks to me like he has been following the Twins closely. Dismissing him outright seems like folly. There is frustration in his tone. Blyleven spoke up last season about how he was tired of journalists sugar-coating the Twins, who were truly one of the worst teams he had ever seen -- seems someone listened.

Edited March 29, 20179 yr by Doomtints

I don't have a problem with the author being skeptical.  It was when he showed his work that elicited the reaction.

He's right that they promoted too many people too early.  If they pan out later, we gave away their best year at peek value in exchange for a sucky year now.  And it doesn't mollify the fans to dangle a star prospect before he's ready and watch him fail, it's just depressing.

One of the most annoyting things he said was they should have traded Dozier. Anyone who paid the tiniest bit of attention knows they spent a huge amount of time trying to do that.  The fact that they didn't doesn't mean they don't grasp the concept of a bad team trading a star to stockpile talent for when they are good again. It means they didn't get any good offers. I think they were smart not to dump him for nothing. Trades made in desperation are rarely good value.

 

Anyway I'd rather watch Dozier hit 42 homers than watch Sano and Buxton strike out because they should have been in AAA.  Same goes for this year.  Buxton's earned a chance, but Sano just seems to get worse and worse.   Maybe they are incentivizing the wrong things with him.  Reaching the majors should be a reward for improving his place discipline. Record strikeouts are only okay if you're destroying the ones you hit, and he's not.

 

I don't have a problem with the author being skeptical.  It was when he showed his work that elicited the reaction.

Yep. I can handle an article that's down on the Twins for a variety of reasons. Those reasons do not include the following:

 

1. Joe Mauer is now an opposite field hitter.

2. Berrios' fastball command is unimpressive.

3. Dozier could hit 30 homers and the Twins still lose 100 games.

4. MLB corner outfielders need to be offensive players.

5. Kurt Suzuki is a better catcher than Jason Castro.

6. Byron Buxton should bunt and go oppo.

 

To put it bluntly, those opinions are asinine. People have made a few jokes about Terry Ryan, which is funny and all, but some of those opinions pre-date even Ryan. And others are just idiotic (Joe Mauer is now an opposite field hitter? WTF?).

 

I don't have a problem with the author being skeptical.  It was when he showed his work that elicited the reaction.

 

Right, had his take simply been: 'The Twins are going to be real bad this year' we'd all be in agreement that this guy knows his stuff.

One of the most annoyting things he said was they should have traded Dozier. Anyone who paid the tiniest bit of attention knows they spent a huge amount of time trying to do that. 

We spent a huge amount of time discussing it.

 

For all we know, the Twins and Dodgers had a couple of brief phone calls and discovered they were at an impasse, and no other team picked up the phone when Fal-Vine called because they knew in advance how the conversation would go.

 

Yep. I can handle an article that's down on the Twins for a variety of reasons. Those reasons do not include the following:

 

1. Joe Mauer is now an opposite field hitter.

2. Berrios' fastball command is unimpressive.

3. Dozier could hit 30 homers and the Twins still lose 100 games.

4. MLB corner outfielders need to be offensive players.

5. Kurt Suzuki is a better catcher than Jason Castro.

6. Byron Buxton should bunt and go oppo.

 

To put it bluntly, those opinions are asinine. People have made a few jokes about Terry Ryan, which is funny and all, but some of those opinions pre-date even Ryan. And others are just idiotic (Joe Mauer is now an opposite field hitter? WTF?).

 

In fairness, didn't Berrios have some serious control issues last year in the majors? Or did I imagine that was a big part of the problem?

 

Can't. Believe. I. Defended. This. Awful. Article. 

 

In fairness, didn't Berrios have some serious control issues last year in the majors? Or did I imagine that was a big part of the problem?

 

Can't. Believe. I. Defended. This. Awful. Article. 

It's not the take on Berrios that bothered me, more how limited it was.

 

Say a hitter comes up and has 100 PAs in MLB as a rookie. The guy has a long track record of contact - over 95% on balls in the zone through his MiLB career - and flails at everything against MLB pitching, striking out 40% of the time.

 

Do you say you're "unimpressed with his contact" and leave it at that or do you suggest something went terribly wrong when he transitioned to MLB, something completely out of the norm for this hitter?

 

It wasn't his Berrios take that bothered me, it's the Rubechat-esque nature of the analysis that got under my skin. That was only compounded by the rest of the article, which was mind-bogglingly bad.

 

Merely saying "Berrios needs to fix the fastball command issues he faced last season in limited innings" fixes that entire take on the guy.

Is the knock on Mauer really unfair?  If I'm looking at his spray chart correctly - and I could very well not  being doing that - it looks like his hits go to LF and his outs go to the second baseman.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=1857&position=C&type=battedball

 

I mean, he certainly had some hits up the middle but it does seem like he either rolls it toward the second baseman - occasionally getting a hit - or it's a line drive the other way.

 

Is the knock on Mauer really unfair?  If I'm looking at his spray chart correctly - and I could very well not  being doing that - it looks like his hits go to LF and his outs go to the second baseman.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=1857&position=C&type=battedball

 

I mean, he certainly had some hits up the middle but it does seem like he either rolls it toward the second baseman - occasionally getting a hit - or it's a line drive the other way.

That's been the case since Mauer entered the league. He puts the ball on the ground to the second baseman and records an out. He puts the ball in the air to left and gets a hit.

 

What's bad about the take is that Mauer has always been that player. This is nothing new. The problem is that he's no longer elite at making contact with the ball.

 

Again, correct conclusion, completely backward analysis.

 

Scouts2.png

 

this is great. 

Scouts2.png

Hahahaha ... careful, SI may call you to be a fact checker to up their cred.

 

Hahahaha ... careful, SI may call you to be a fact checker to up their cred.

 

fact checkers are still a thing? Who knew?

fact checkers are still a thing? Who knew?

Maybe I should have said alternate facts checker? I can't keep up.

6. Byron Buxton should bunt and go oppo.

When you have a five-tool player, it is important to emphasize the lesser tool over the greater.

 

When you have a five-tool player, it is important to emphasize the lesser tool over the greater.

I'm really concerned about Buxton's arm.

 

I did feel like I was reading "bot programmed to sound like it is 1980". You think a bot wrote this?

 

sounds like a game thread idea....

 

Ha ha ha. There are no bots on this forum, fellow humans. That would be ridiculous, and you should not believe any of it. I am just like you.

 

Ha ha ha. There are no bots on this forum, fellow humans. That would be ridiculous, and you should not believe any of it. I am just like you.

 

Well played.

SI ?  As in "Sports Illustrated?  Well, kinda betting the Swimsuit Edition won't be up to par, either....

I don't know. you get points for showing your work. He might be right, but if you make 20 mistakes and get the right answer, that doesn't make you smart.

nailed it