one_eyed_jack

Well, now it's all about Luis getting a batting title, and some young guys getting a chance to prove they belong. This season should leave a very bad taste in everyone's mouth, hopefully a bunch of them come back in 2023 full of piss and vinegar, ready to do battle.

When that's the lineup you have to roll with in a must-win game, well, it's pretty difficult to be optimistic. We've endured some bad Twins seasons. Some were disappointing, Others were downright depressing. But I don't think I've ever seen a season this frustrating. This is a very weak and very winnable division. This Cleveland team is not exactly the '27 Yankees. The flaws in how this team was constructed notwithstanding, there's enough talent there that a postseason appearance should have been a layup. But thanks to what seemed like a never-ending stream of bad moves, bad decisions and bad luck, the Twins are going to finish 3rd.

Well, that sucked. But not unexpected when you’re running out a lineup half-filled with fringe major leaguers every night. Should be an interesting off-season.

Now do runs scored,

Feels like a similar case for Jason Kendall. When you look closely, his case is stronger than you would have expected, but still well short of any reasonable Cooperstown standard. And probably the same result as Kendall, one-and-done. I lean more “big hall” but I am not interested in lowering the bar to the point where every above-average player who hung around for a while gets in.

I think it also came from the fact that the Twins would get hits but end up stranding a lot of guys on base. Their opponents who had power hitters didn't have that problem. Take for example the 2009 ALDS. The Twins outhit the Yankees 29-23 in that series but were outscored by the Yankees 15-6 thanks largely to the fact that the Yankees outhomered the Twins 6-0. So it was all "you can't beat the Yankees with small ball, you need to have guys who can hit the ball over the fence to match their power." Which wasn't wrong, but it's odd to see the "you can't rely on home run hitters to score runs in postseason" takes being advanced by the same people now. But in any case, like you said, it's been the same basic story of the Twins unable to score runs both now and then. Although I find these last 2 years, particularly this year, infinitely more frustrating due to the degree that the lineup underperformed. Just a lot of really, really bad at-bats from guys who can and should do better. I think Twins hitters not named Nelson Cruz were 5-for-53 this series? That's just wretched.

One thing I've found mildly amusing in the aftermath of this latest playoff debacle is the local media folks and their "you can't win with Bomba-ball in the postseason, you need to be able to scratch out runs" hot takes. Same people who 10-15 years ago were writing "you can't win with Piranha-ball in the postseason, you need power hitters who can hit the long ball".

Maddening. Excruciating. Soul crushing. I am running out of adjectives to describe what it’s like to watch this team excel in the regular season then defecate all over themselves in the postseason. I don’t know what the answer is. Horrible at-bats by quality hitters. Bad base running. Untimely errors. Dubious managerial moves. Just a complete meltdown.

There were a few dubious decisions to be sure but this series was so one-sided that it's hard to imagine a different outcome had different decisions been made. It was such a frustrating series, made even more so by the fact that every other DS is competitive - we're the only team that got so easily sent home. I'm so sick of the condescending pats on the head, the "plucky midwestern overachievers who get routinely stomped by the big bad bullies from the Bronx" narrative. Open the vaults, get a couple of shutdown starters and lockdown bullpen guys and flip the effing script. I don't want to hear about how proud you are of your regular season. I want to hear about how you're not satisfied with being playoff punching bags.

This one really stings. It reminds me of the 2006 season - a team that was a ton of fun to watch and exceeded everyone's expectations - entered the playoffs with a roar and exited in 3 games with a whimper, though that time to Oakland. To me, what makes these series with the Yankees so maddening is that not only are they the better team, but every break, every call and every bounce seems to go their way when we play them in the postseason, and the Twins don't help themselves with their habit of self-inflicted injuries. (Cave, what in God's name were you thinking diving for that ball.) And I can't stand hearing about how brilliant the Yankee pitching was. Yeah, they were good, but a lot of it was just bad at-bats by the Twins. Flailing away at garbage way out of the zone, fouling off destroyable pitches, we made their 3 serviceable starters look like Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz 2.0. Rosario, Arraez and Polanco were the only 3 guys that didn't consistently look clueless and helpless at the plate. Garver, Sano and Kepler were particularly disappointing. Oh well, hopefully this is an experience that they learn from, and they come back hungry in the spring. And we spend some money on pitching - we just don't have the arms to compete in October right now.

Yeah I don't see us beating the Yankees 2-1 or 3-2. I think they key will be jumping on Severino to build a healthy lead and let Odo relax a bit while forcing the Yankees to go to their pen early. A close game in the late innings does not favor us.

I didn't expect the Twins to win over 100 games and break the home run record. I had more fun watching Twins baseball this year than I have in years. But man, another loss tomorrow, particularly if it's another loss of the non-competitive variety, and it will be hard to look back on it positively. At least initially, when it's still raw and emotions are running high. I'm sure I'll feel differently as the off-season progresses and the conversation shifts to talking about 2020. I agree that a win tomorrow would be huge, even if that's all we win. I just don't see beating the Yankees 3 straight. But for the love of God, rise up and win one effing game. Give the home fans something to cheer about. End the historic postseason losing streak so we don't have that hanging over us next time we play October baseball. And show the world we at least belong on the same field as the Yankees, cuz we sure didn't look like it this weekend. Severino is a beatable pitcher. Odo is capable of throwing a good game. Get it done.

These 2 losses have been painful, much more so than years past. At least last decade, you expected it. The Yankees top-to-bottom simply had much better teams - especially in terms of starting pitching and offensive depth. Still, the Twins were competitive in most games, and were often in position to win until foiled by a bad bounce, a bad call or a bad pitch. But there isn't that same talent disparity this time around. To watch this Twins lineup flail against utterly hittable Yankee pitching is maddening. 14K's? Blech. Let's see what happens on Monday, Severino is another hittable pitcher. But as good as this team has been, if Monday's game is a repeat of today's, the fans will be well within their rights to boo the hometown team off the field.

I understand the idea of a HOF, and don't disagree with reserving the highest honor for the very best of the best, but it does leave a lot of players who contributed a lot to the game out. I've wondered whether the binary HOFer/non-HOFer distinction is too simplistic, and maybe there should be other categories that can be used to honor guys who aren't worthy of induction to the HOF, but are still worthy of recognition. The defensive wizards. The super sluggers. The scrappy, speedy lead-off hitters. The guys who excelled for short stretches and were on HOF trajectories until injuries derailed their careers. The iron men who had productive 20+ year careers. The current HOF process results in these guys getting critiqued and put down for everything they weren't. Wouldn't it be better if there were some way to celebrate and honor what they were?

I've long wondered whether TK, Puck and Hrbek made a deal with the Devil back in the day: 2 World Series crowns for a lifetime of sports suffering. "You shall twice celebrate as world champions", Satan said, "but for the next 2 generations, should any of your local teams appear poised to win a third, it shall not happen. They may get close, but to a man, they shall fail spectacularly in the biggest of moments." And so when Satan came to enforce this unholy bargain on the Lynx, Maya Moore said to him, "Aha, but we are not men" as she calmly drained a 3 in his face.

Sad day but probably the right decision for Joe. Amazing career that could have been a lot more amazing without the concussions. I'll miss watching him play.

I mostly lurk on this great site, don't post a whole lot, but I can't not chime in on Mauer. Great guy, great player. It's a shame that he and Morneau both had their careers so limited by injuries. In '06 I thought those 2 would be terrorizing opposing pitching for the next decade plus. I never understood the venomous hatred of Mauer spewed from the darkest corners of the Twins fan base, or why certain members of the local sports media (Barreiro and Souhan in particular) not only felt compelled to pour gasoline on that fire by spreading vicious rumors and bizarre theories about him, but take a certain savage pleasure in doing so. Who knows, maybe he's not done. Maybe a few months or even a year from now, he'll decide he's still got some baseball left in him. But in any case, it was a nice swan song today, and it left me sadder than I thought it would that I'll probably never hear him introduced at Target Field again.

But it's not like the victim's testimony is the first and last thing that happens at a rape trial and jurors are required to assess it in a vacuum. Plenty of other types of evidence are introduced: eyewitnesses who saw either the accuser or the defendant after the alleged incident, witnesses who knew both parties to describe their relationship, alibi witnesses for the defendant if the defendant is claiming it wasn't him, surveillance video if they were together in a public police before it happened, credit card receipts, medical records, expert testimony, social media posts, text messages, and phone records for starters (Even in this incident, which happened 2 years ago and was not reported to anyone at the time, the MLB found 20 witnesses to interview.) It may well be that none of the other evidence corroborates the accuser's account, making it hard to get a conviction, but that's why the constitutional presumption of innocence exists - so that the state can't rip you from your home and lock you in a cage without proof you did anything wrong; it's a feature, not a bug.

The problem with law enforcement's approach to sex crimes is one of perverse incentives. Thanks to a flow of federal money and asset forfeiture laws that allow local police departments to enrich themselves with what they seize from drug investigation, they tend to put most of their resources into drug enforcement. They'll send out teams of guys to raid pot dealers while rape kits sit untested for months, even years, if they are ever tested at all. They don't get any money for solving rapes, but they do for going after drug dealers. As far as defense attorneys go, they should not be shamed for "victim blaming" because they raise a consent defense on behalf of their client when there is evidence to support it. Everyone charged with a crime is entitled to a vigorous defense. (I see this narrative about defense attorneys raised frequently, I swear they must teach kids in school these days that Atticus Finch was the bad guy in To Kill a Mockingbird because he questioned a rape accuser.)

Sufficient evidence for what - a conviction? Yes, if the jury believes it, the victim's testimony alone could be enough. But that doesn't really mean much because the alleged victim's testimony is not the only evidence presented at a trial. Whether the jury believes the victim will often hinge on how well it matches the other evidence presented. In this case, given that there was no independent evidence to substantiate the allegations, and possibly evidence to contradict them, it would be pretty tough to sell a jury on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's not going to satisfy everyone, but based on the evidence this strikes me as the correct result. At the end of the day, what you had was a Twitter accusation that Sano committed a serious crime in a public place 2 years ago. The MLB investigated and found no evidence to corroborate it, and apparently, perhaps some evidence to contradict it. I have a hard time seeing how punishing Sano would be fair in this situation. Maybe there's temptation to do so to show support for #metoo, but I think we also need to be mindful of the fact that this country also has a history of punishing black men for allegations of sexual misconduct against a white woman based on flimsy evidence. It's interesting to me that so many seem to be so quick to assume that Sano is guilty here - would the reaction be the same if a black woman made the same accusation 2 years later, giving a reason for waiting that is demonstrably false, against Mauer or Dozier?

To your last point, this is a perfect example of what we've been talking about when we say that it's important to distinguish between criminal and boorish behavior, and how damaging it is to conflate them. And it refutes the claim of those pushing back at the point that "nobody is saying those are the same thing". Well, look at all the "Ansari accused of sexual assault" headlines. I think another way this happens is that there are these non-specific terms like "sexual misconduct" and "inappropriate behavior" thrown around. "Sexual harassment", "assault" and "rape" are legal terms with specific definitions. There may be arguments in a given case whether the conduct at issue falls into those definitions, but they are clearly defined. But "sexual misconduct" is a vague term used to encompass all sorts of bad behavior of vastly varying degrees by men towards women. So when an article talks about the number of the men in the entertainment industry that have been accused of "sexual misconduct", then lists Weinsten and Ansari as examples, it creates a false impression of equivalency between them.

Yeah I'm kinda uneasy about this one too. That statement does make you wonder. Also the way she went to a publication about this a year later with every lurid detail of the evening, after changing her mind that this was not just an awkward encounter but an assault. It does seem like this was a lot more about getting revenge on Ansari than on getting justice or changing the culture. Also, neither gender should have to do the 'vast majority of putting on the brakes'. Both parties should have the same responsibility for clear, open communication and respecting what the other person tells them. This woman admits she was a willing participant in sexual activity with Ansari, but complains that he did not pick up on her "non-verbal cues" that she wasn't enthusiastic about it. I don't know what non-verbal cues she gave off, but his failure to read them does not make him a criminal.

The latest to stand accused is Aziz Ansari I think this one touches on a lot of the issues discussed in this thread.

This is a good piece that articulates a lot of the concerns I have about where the #metoo movement is going with its "reflexive and unnuanced sense of outrage", even though I am wholly supportive of the main underlying issue that prompted its creation. Worth a read.