kenbuddha

Or or or... the Twins made an offer that was very reasonable over a 10 year period. In fact, it was more per year than either the Giants or Mets offered. I also am going to give the FO credit wherein they knew he wasn't coming here without an offer that blew the other offers out of the water. Face it, we were never a long term option for Correa. We finished 3rd with him. How does signing him move us up? Without signing him does it realistically move us down in this division? He's not an answer for us, imo. Rodon was always bound for NYC. So he's out. Personally I would have offered Verlander 3/$120M. What an anchor and what an example for the rest of the staff. It's only 3 years and it fills a serious void. Missed opportunity imo. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Instead of contracting, I'd rather they go to a multi-tiered system ala soccer leagues in the UK. If you finish in the bottom 3 you get relegated down, likewise if you finish in the top 3 you move up.

... beating dead horse... Ownership told us they'd be able to spend half of the Target Field revenues on payroll. Therefore they should have been spending approximately $125M. When they had a payroll of $82M in 2013 or $85M in 2014 how did Mauer's contract keep them from spending that extra $40M per season? After that they went up to $108M for 3 seasons, again tell me how Mauer's contract kept them from spending the extra $20M each year? Man. Pay attention.

Lol. Yes I realize what it means for the starters, but what I believe what it means as a staff is they face fewer batters. So, being 6th in the league, our pitching staff is much more efficient than the rest of the league.

I don't exactly know what this means... When talking about TBF (total batters faced) by the starters the Twins are 29th in the league. On the flip side, our entire staff is 6th in the league in fewest TBF. That's pretty efficient, no? That seems to indicate we're doing something right. Limiting the opponents to the fewest chances seems to be significant.

Not even close to accurate with respect to Berrios. Go look at his game log when Baldelli was his manager (fangraphs split tool is pretty cool). He consistently pitched to batters a 3rd time in a game. He consistently pitched to over 25 batters per game and 7 innings which is how Toronto has been using him. Berrios' issue wasn't how he was being used (or if it was he should have complaints about it in Toronto as well then). Again, Baldelli lets good pitchers pitch. It's a quality vs quantity issue. And has been stated many times in these comments if Baldelli goes he'd be replaced with someone very similar since it's a Twins philosophy.

Boston absolutely can afford him, for whatever reason they chose not to. The team is valued at $3.9B. I think someone is buying what the owners are selling.

That's just bad parenting!

I imagine after Babe Ruth hit more HRs in a single season than many teams did and other teams started adding power hitters many people lamented the fact that no one was putting the ball in play any more. Power hitters are ruining the game! The statheads of the day just ruined it for everyone who loved station to station rounders. Ye statheads shall rejoiceth!

You've gotta get a t-shirt with that on it ala John, Paul, George and Ringo.

Oh now I see it. Yes, That's a much simpler explanation.

I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing by telling me that BA is a subset of both OBP and SLG. Everybody knows that. And the rest of your message seems to indicate some grander set of thoughts that I didn't bring up at all but I guess you felt the need to give me as some indicator of why BA is good? Keep to the subject please. While I'm at risk of carrying on a conversation I no longer wish to pursue I'll try again. With respect to Miguel Sano's second half last season, his BA of .250 would tend to tell us it was not a very good second half. However, an OBP of .343 or SLG of .504 or combined an OPS of .847 would indicate that while it wasn't close to his best season it was at least not as bad as we think it was. Again <sigh> a .250 BA doesn't come close to giving a reasonable indicator of how he hit in the 2nd half of 2021 where as any of the other 3 stats give a much more accurate assessment. And with that. I'm done.

Batting average in general. I thought everyone moved past batting average being meaningful long ago. I'm being serious when I say please either show me or point me at a recent article that indicates that BA is making a meaningful comeback. In fact, I'd say OPS is the defacto standard for throwing out a quick evaluator of a players hitting. BA can be "high" and empty (see 1987 Willie McGee). Wrt Sano's numbers that 2nd half BA of .250 is deceptive in relation to his 2nd half OBP/SLG/OPS of 343/504/847. BA just doesn't put his 2nd half into proper perspective. Hence my comment BA is garbage.

Well, his half season splits show a dramatic change. His OBP went from .279 to .343. His OPS went from .705 to .847. Nothing modest about it. Once again, batting average is garbage. We've seen this before but I'm willing to see it again.

I have a hard time believing that anyone still thinks analytics is controversial. After all, baseball has always had more statistics than any sport. As a kid if you were into numbers baseball is what you gravitated to. Analytics is just diving in deeper. With Moneyball it was a realization that as an organization they couldn't just keep doing the same thing they've always done. They had to figure out a different way since the teams with money could hire the best scouts, pay the highest bonuses, sign the expensive free agents and retain their top talent. They had to find an edge other than "baseball savvy" because that's what they had always done and they couldn't compete any more. In today's game, analytics is finally the norm but there's lots of unexplored space in analytics and the today's teams continuing to explore are the equivalent of Moneyball's A's. Finding an edge. Baseball savvy of course still has a place, just not anywhere close to the start-middle-and-end of each organizational decision that it once was. And in my opinion, "Trouble With The Curve" was the equivalent of an old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn. Just a big giant dated cliche. And I'm an old man.