What If Miguel Is Really Kyle?

  On 1/5/2018 at 6:35 PM, Darius said:

I don't know if you call what Doogie does "reporting." Guy throws crap against the wall on Twitter constantly to see what sticks. He spends 8 hours per day going off on people trolling him on Twitter.

Funny, he claims to have all these sources but never breaks a damn story. I can recall more stories broken by Meatsauce from KFAN.

He made fun of me for being a substitute teacher after I made a wise ass remark about his grammar. It was pretty amusing. (For the record, I just aksed Google if "wise ass" should be hyphenated. Nerd alert)

  On 1/6/2018 at 5:32 PM, Ted Schwerzler said:

Here's the thing...While Sano's actions off the field will carry consequences as the process plays out, he's still a baseball player on the Minnesota Twins. For me, I've long since separated human actions from athletes and celebrities. Looking up to them or seeing them as infallible is a fool's errand. In the context of baseball decisions, there was still a talking point here, and I don't feel as though the discussion waters down any of the fallout that will come from his deplorable actions.

I think people who have "long since separated human actions from athletes and celebrities" ought to reconsider that position, particularly in instances of violence/harassment against women and children.

In the time since the reports of Sano's behavior, the attention paid to him on this site has focused on those reports. I would characterize the conversations as: tense, emotional, angry, and desperate, but still thoughtful, and productive. It has been an appropriate response. The effect of this article and its place on the front page of TwinsDaily, and the comment thread that follows, is a redirection of the attention being paid to Sano. It redirects from issues that are uncomfortable and painful but extremely important to issues that are benign and fun but relatively unimportant (in a parallel universe, I might even debate their contextual importance). If that isn't "watering things down" I don't know what is.

The sense I have of the administrators and participants, generally, of TwinsDaily, is that they do care very much about the issues surrounding, and the particular case of, Miguel Sano's reported behavior. Still, there may be some who do not. (To be clear, I don't get the sense that you are among them). In the name of anti-censorship, there is probably a place on this site for current conversations about Miguel Sano's trade value, weight issues, and BABIP. I don't think that place is a front page article.

As a man, I have the luxury of engaging in and disconnecting from thought/conversation/etc about these issues at my convenience. I think, for women, this is probably a luxury not so easy to come by. If I imagine myself as a woman viewing this article and the following comment thread, maybe I am disappointed, but probably I am thinking. "oh well, I guess it's back to business as usual for the boys."

  On 1/6/2018 at 6:25 PM, Riverbrian said:

 

 

I hope they understand that if the Yankees offered Chapman to the Twins today... 2 years later... I'm guessing that maybe 95% of all Twins Fans would welcome him to a Twins uniform. (as long as we don't have to give up prospects or something).     

 

Meet me in the 5%

  On 1/6/2018 at 6:54 PM, Sam Morley said:

I think people who have "long since separated human actions from athletes and celebrities" ought to reconsider that position, particularly in instances of violence/harassment against women and children.

 

In the time since the reports of Sano's behavior, the attention paid to him on this site has focused on those reports. I would characterize the conversations as: tense, emotional, angry, and desperate, but still thoughtful, and productive. It has been an appropriate response. The effect of this article and its place on the front page of TwinsDaily, and the comment thread that follows, is a redirection of the attention being paid to Sano. It redirects from issues that are uncomfortable and painful but extremely important to issues that are benign and fun but relatively unimportant (in a parallel universe, I might even debate their contextual importance). If that isn't "watering things down" I don't know what is.

 

The sense I have of the administrators and participants, generally, of TwinsDaily, is that they do care very much about the issues surrounding, and the particular case of, Miguel Sano's reported behavior. Still, there may be some who do not. (To be clear, I don't get the sense that you are among them). In the name of anti-censorship, there is probably a place on this site for current conversations about Miguel Sano's trade value, weight issues, and BABIP. I don't think that place is a front page article.

 

As a man, I have the luxury of engaging in and disconnecting from thought/conversation/etc about these issues at my convenience. I think, for women, this is probably a luxury not so easy to come by. If I imagine myself as a woman viewing this article and the following comment thread, maybe I am disappointed, but probably I am thinking. "oh well, I guess it's back to business as usual for the boys."

The author provided you with an explanation that further expanded on the one he prefaced the comments section with. Neither of those comments were necessary, nor did they need any clarification, but he was kind enough to give both. If the idea of discussing Sano in any context apart from the mall incident infuriates you, there are at least 3 other threads devoted entirely to the allegations surrounding him. This one isn't the fourth. If you're asking that a recent article not be allowed to cycle through the front page, as all current articles do, then yes, you're asking for censorship. 

I agree we should trade Sano when he's "39". We've waited what, 45 years to have a hitter like this in the lineup. Heaven forbid he hasn't made the hall of fame after 2 whole seasons. One of which he played half a season with a severe leg injury. Third, first, DH or whatever you bat him cleanup just as much as possible.

Is there a bat with comparable potential in the Twins minor league system. I don't think so. I would take him everyday over a starting pitcher who plays maybe 30 games a year for 5 or 6 innings.

  On 1/6/2018 at 5:22 PM, Deduno Abides said:

Hey, if people want to believe Sano’s natural talent BABIP is higher than those of Babe Ruth, Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout, or the single season peaks of Hank Aaron, Willie Mays and Albert Pujols, have at it.

I expect Sano's BAPIP to come down to the .340's but that is a long way from regressing to an average for all players. He should have a very high BAPIP. At the same time I expect Sano to make progress at the plate which I think will more than offset  the slash stat loss due to BAPIP.

He has played parts of 3 MLB seasons at age 21-23 and I think the injuries, position changes and defensive pressure have held him back. I really want to see what he can do with a season w/o distractions. Not sure if that will be this year though.

  On 1/6/2018 at 9:39 PM, KirbyDome89 said:

The author provided you with an explanation that further expanded on the one he prefaced the comments section with. Neither of those comments were necessary, nor did they need any clarification, but he was kind enough to give both. If the idea of discussing Sano in any context apart from the mall incident infuriates you, there are at least 3 other threads devoted entirely to the allegations surrounding him. This one isn't the fourth. If you're asking that a recent article not be allowed to cycle through the front page, as all current articles do, then yes, you're asking for censorship. 

Yes, I read the explanation as well as the disclaimer. Whether or not they were necessary, they were informative, which I think was the point.

I know about the other threads. I know this thread isn't one of them, and I don't think the aim of my comments is to redirect it to be (or maybe it is, in part). Do you think my comments have been inappropriate?

Most important to me in my response to you is to clarify that I do not think the article nor the comment thread accompanying it should be censored. Even while my post expressed affirmation for anti-censorship, you have interpreted that expression to be at odds with other sentiments in my posts. I did not mean to be contradictory, and I state now that I think the article and the thread should stand. I find the timing of the publishing of the article to be insensitive, disrespectful, and irrelevant, but I do not think that now that it exists it should be censored. I think that the timing of the publishing of the article reflects badly on TwinsDaily. With hindsight, I wish that the author and/or the site administrators had exercised better/different judgement about where to present/store the content. My insight into how TD choses articles for publication is limited. My personal experience is that on occasion, a blog entry I have written has been selected for publication on the front page as an article. Each of these instances has occurred without notice, and in some cases, the administrators even made minor editions. My point is this: the content that the administrators choose for article publication is chosen at their discretion. All of the blog content on this site is not chosen for publication as an article. I would assume that not all of the content authored with intent for publication as an article is chosen for publication as an article. I don't think that those choices amount to censorship. I don't think they would have in this case, specifically.

In his brief disclaimer in the comment thread, the author asks the readers to view the article through a lens aside from the reports about Sano's behavior. I question how realistic this request is, and I would point out, that besides me, many other commenters in the thread have chosen to disregard it in their attempts to revaluate Sano as a trade candidate specifically in light of the reports. 

In his response to me, the author stated his choice to view the athlete objectively, apart from his/her humanity. In general, in instances of violence/harassment against women in particular, and in the specific case of Miguel Sano, I challenge this choice. Why make this choice?

  On 1/7/2018 at 10:20 PM, Sam Morley said:

Yes, I read the explanation as well as the disclaimer. Whether or not they were necessary, they were informative, which I think was the point.

 

I know about the other threads. I know this thread isn't one of them, and I don't think the aim of my comments is to redirect it to be (or maybe it is, in part). Do you think my comments have been inappropriate?

 

Most important to me in my response to you is to clarify that I do not think the article nor the comment thread accompanying it should be censored. Even while my post expressed affirmation for anti-censorship, you have interpreted that expression to be at odds with other sentiments in my posts. I did not mean to be contradictory, and I state now that I think the article and the thread should stand. I find the timing of the publishing of the article to be insensitive, disrespectful, and irrelevant, but I do not think that now that it exists it should be censored. I think that the timing of the publishing of the article reflects badly on TwinsDaily. With hindsight, I wish that the author and/or the site administrators had exercised better/different judgement about where to present/store the content. My insight into how TD choses articles for publication is limited. My personal experience is that on occasion, a blog entry I have written has been selected for publication on the front page as an article. Each of these instances has occurred without notice, and in some cases, the administrators even made minor editions. My point is this: the content that the administrators choose for article publication is chosen at their discretion. All of the blog content on this site is not chosen for publication as an article. I would assume that not all of the content authored with intent for publication as an article is chosen for publication as an article. I don't think that those choices amount to censorship. I don't think they would have in this case, specifically.

 

In his brief disclaimer in the comment thread, the author asks the readers to view the article through a lens aside from the reports about Sano's behavior. I question how realistic this request is, and I would point out, that besides me, many other commenters in the thread have chosen to disregard it in their attempts to revaluate Sano as a trade candidate specifically in light of the reports. 

 

In his response to me, the author stated his choice to view the athlete objectively, apart from his/her humanity. In general, in instances of violence/harassment against women in particular, and in the specific case of Miguel Sano, I challenge this choice. Why make this choice?

Not at all inappropriate, but we'll disagree about the sensitivity, respect, and relevancy of the article. 

I can't claim total knowledge about publication either, but I will say I've seen the author's work fairly regularly on the front page, along with the other prominent writers, which leads me to believe the article was made for publication. I think it's safe to assume that a hierarchy of writers exists, and so I'm not sure that the process for blog publication is an effective measuring stick for articles such as this. You're asking for an article to be excluded from the from the front page because of its' content. How else should I  interpret that, other than censorship?

I'm aware that other posts touched on the allegations, but yours was the only one that questioned the validity of the article and called for its' relocation. I took issue with what I perceived as a purposeful redirection of the thread, especially after if was explicitly stated that this thread wasn't intended to go in that direction. If you say that wasn't the intention then I'll take your word for it. As to why the article was written, I believe that rationale has already been given. 

Baseball is an entertainment business. As such it relies disproportionately on the fans perception of their products likeability, unlike say a plumber. Their product is a sum of its parts, players and staff. This makes Sano's alleged behavior(s) part and parcel of his value. The relationship is inescapable.

This would apply whether the act was as alleged, or if it was shoplifting, armed robbery, or a DUI. For each act there would be consequences to the player. Civil, criminal, and MLB related.

From there on it is also unavoidable that each FO, field staff member, advertiser, and fan would form their own opinion of how they would proceed with not only their perception of the player, but in some cases his continued financial value to them, be it on the field or as a trade piece. These considerations are inescapable.

I don't know whether Sano did what he was accused of, nor do I know what MLB will do in regards to it. But there will be fans who do not go to games because of it, and fans who do not care. That is to each their own decision. I don't live in their world, nor do I have to approve of their values. FO's types will use a far more calculating metric on the moralities of his alleged actions. Each has different types of constituencies to consider. And those groups will impact Sanos value to that GM when he considers whether it's feasible to put the teams uniform on his back.

Like it or not, the recent allegations about Miguel Sano will remain intrinsic to his value for a long time, if not the entirety of his career.

  On 1/8/2018 at 3:54 AM, KirbyDome89 said:

Not at all inappropriate, but we'll disagree about the sensitivity, respect, and relevancy of the article. 

 

I can't claim total knowledge about publication either, but I will say I've seen the author's work fairly regularly on the front page, along with the other prominent writers, which leads me to believe the article was made for publication. I think it's safe to assume that a hierarchy of writers exists, and so I'm not sure that the process for blog publication is an effective measuring stick for articles such as this. You're asking for an article to be excluded from the from the front page because of its' content. How else should I  interpret that, other than censorship?

 

I'm aware that other posts touched on the allegations, but yours was the only one that questioned the validity of the article and called for its' relocation. I took issue with what I perceived as a purposeful redirection of the thread, especially after if was explicitly stated that this thread wasn't intended to go in that direction. If you say that wasn't the intention then I'll take your word for it. As to why the article was written, I believe that rationale has already been given. 

If you review my posts, you will find that I never asked for an article to be excluded, nor did I call for an article's relocation. I expressed disappointment in the judgment exercised by the author and site administrators in regards to the timing of the article's publication, not its content. I don't think that amounts to censorship advocacy. If you perceive a contradiction in something I've said, I'd prefer that you ask for clarification rather than inaccurately paraphrase me to the strength of your own point.

Nothing about the direction of the thread is explicitly stated in the article. The disclaimer is half way down the first page of comments and it is not only not explicit, it's actually metaphorical. Explicit would have been: "When you read this article and comment in the thread that follows, please only consider, and/or comment about, Miguel Sano as a baseball player and not as a purveyor of sexual harassment/violence." as opposed to, "please view this article through a lens."

I'm a little confused about the last sentence in your post, and to what it is referring. I didn't ask why the article was written. Did you think I did? I did ask a question at the end of my last post, "Why make this choice?" It was in reference to the author's statement about choosing to view athletes apart from their humanity. To that, there has yet to be any answer- and I certainly don't feel entitled to one. I still think it's a question worth asking. 

  On 1/8/2018 at 12:52 PM, Platoon said:

Baseball is an entertainment business. As such it relies disproportionately on the fans perception of their products likeability, unlike say a plumber. Their product is a sum of its parts, players and staff. This makes Sano's alleged behavior(s) part and parcel of his value. The relationship is inescapable.

This would apply whether the act was as alleged, or if it was shoplifting, armed robbery, or a DUI. For each act there would be consequences to the player. Civil, criminal, and MLB related.

From there on it is also unavoidable that each FO, field staff member, advertiser, and fan would form their own opinion of how they would proceed with not only their perception of the player, but in some cases his continued financial value to them, be it on the field or as a trade piece. These considerations are inescapable.

I don't know whether Sano did what he was accused of, nor do I know what MLB will do in regards to it. But there will be fans who do not go to games because of it, and fans who do not care. That is to each their own decision. I don't live in their world, nor do I have to approve of their values. FO's types will use a far more calculating metric on the moralities of his alleged actions. Each has different types of constituencies to consider. And those groups will impact Sanos value to that GM when he considers whether it's feasible to put the teams uniform on his back.

Like it or not, the recent allegations about Miguel Sano will remain intrinsic to his value for a long time, if not the entirety of his career.

In terms of reality, I think this is spot on. Most of my posts, in this thread and in others, on the topic, have been grounded less in reality more in idealism. The ideal is such that one day, people's distaste for the behavior Sano is accused of is so overwhelming that his value to any pro sports organization be zero. I don't know of any other way for me to strive for the ideal but than to express my own distaste when the opportunity arises, as well as to confront indifference when I perceive it.

  On 1/8/2018 at 6:28 PM, Sam Morley said:

If you review my posts, you will find that I never asked for an article to be excluded, nor did I call for an article's relocation. I expressed disappointment in the judgment exercised by the author and site administrators in regards to the timing of the article's publication, not its content. I don't think that amounts to censorship advocacy. If you perceive a contradiction in something I've said, I'd prefer that you ask for clarification rather than inaccurately paraphrase me to the strength of your own point.

 

Nothing about the direction of the thread is explicitly stated in the article. The disclaimer is half way down the first page of comments and it is not only not explicit, it's actually metaphorical. Explicit would have been: "When you read this article and comment in the thread that follows, please only consider, and/or comment about, Miguel Sano as a baseball player and not as a purveyor of sexual harassment/violence." as opposed to, "please view this article through a lens."

 

I'm a little confused about the last sentence in your post, and to what it is referring. I didn't ask why the article was written. Did you think I did? I did ask a question at the end of my last post, "Why make this choice?" It was in reference to the author's statement about choosing to view athletes apart from their humanity. To that, there has yet to be any answer- and I certainly don't feel entitled to one. I still think it's a question worth asking. 

You did, you stated that the front page wasn't the place for this article. There was no paraphrasing there. If normal operating procedures are suspended and an article isn't allowed on the front that is censorship. It doesn't matter whether your issue is the content or the timing of publication. Apparently we disagree on the definition of the word. 

"For the sake of full disclosure, I had this written last week prior to Sano's news. That being said, this should be viewed through a lens completely aside from that scenario."

The request to view the baseball decision apart from the personal issues wasn't explicit? That's flat out untrue, and you know as much, as is evidenced by your attack of the idea of separating the issues regarding Sano. 

So you're not questioning why the article was written, only the entire premise from which it flows? There doesn't seem to be much distinction between questioning why a piece is written and questioning its' viewpoint entirely. 

You're absolutely entitled to your views on this article, where it belongs, and anything else pertaining to Sano. That said, your response to me was essentially splitting hairs and a fairly overt misrepresentation of the article pretext. I can confidently say we aren't going to find much common ground on this issue, so it's likely best we agree to disagree and move on. 

To reiterate a bit on glunn's previous moderation note, either keep the topic on task, or stop posting in it.

If you want to continue a philosophical discussion of the article's timing/existence/worth, please take it to the Questions About MinnCentric forum, or address a moderator/administrator directly.

Thank you.

Kyle and Miguel are similar in that they are one dimensional players.  The situations are different cause the Twins have a DH spot available for them to use for such a player.

  On 1/9/2018 at 2:35 AM, Thrylos said:

Well, Sano is 22nd out of 31 third basemen with 500 innings or more in the position in OOZ plays, 17th in UZR/150 and 17th in fangraphs Def metrics.  That's right in the middle of the pack, as far as defense goes, which is what people around here would call "solid".  And his numbers were ahead of Adrian Beltre's.

 

Objectively.

 

And this comes from someone who remembers the days of the Twins trolling Brian Butcher (sic) and Mike Lamb out there, when they were quasi "competing".

And 30th in RZR and tied for 23rd in DRS (with Escobar). That DRS ranking almost assuredly gets lower if he plays a regular amount of innings at 3B.  And the OOZ ranking you stated earlier stays 22nd (actually tied at 22) even if you are looking at 26 3Bs who had at least 650 or more innings. 

He's a bad defensive player who DOES do a couple things very well (coming up on slow hit balls and his arm), but those two things don't make him a quality defender.  

But some still insist he's a good or solid defender and they are certainly entitled to their opinion. I don't buy it and I think it gets worse as he gets older and his body breaks down carrying his weight.