32nd man for All-Star Game

[Long_Long_Name]

I value uniforms very highly in picking favorite teams. I'm not ashamed of it.

[Davey Eckstein]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

LOL, Am I suppose to take any of this "crap" serious and that is what it is. They dont hit and run well??? How the f'ck would you know, if they are so boring I am sure you dont watch them. They dont have patience, have you ever watched Joe Mauer? I would think a team that doesnt walk much would be less boring, I didnt realize you though walks were so exciting. They dont play def well, Again complete crud, Hunter and Mauer are amonst the best at their positions, Bartlett has tremenodus range, Castillo is a former gold glove 2nd baseman, and Punto is great defensively. Please get a clue before you rant about stupid things that you know nothing about.

You're making a bad name for Twins fans

[ozziethesaint]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Hunter, Mauer, Bartlett, Castillo and Punto are all above average at their position. I'd love for him to try and argue that.

You had me with you until that statement. Castillo is so overrated it's not even funny. Punto should never be anything more than a backup INF'er. and Bartlett is so good that he had to be sent out to AAA earlier. and then I could go on for ages about crappy the Twins front office is, I mean hell come on, Rondell White? Ruben Sierra? Tony Batista?

[Davey Eckstein]

Originally Posted by ozziethesaint

You had me with you until that statement. Castillo is so overrated it's not even funny. Punto should never be anything more than a backup INF'er. and Bartlett is so good that he had to be sent out to AAA earlier. and then I could go on for ages about crappy the Twins front office is, I mean hell come on, Rondell White? Ruben Sierra? Tony Batista?

Yeah! Fransico Liriano? Johan Santana! JOE MAUER?!!?!

[ozziethesaint]

come on now, there's no way to spin White, Sierra or Batsta and say those were even decent signings. so in the past the Twins may have made some great moves but currently not so hot

Plus how long have they needed a legit bat? 3-4 years now? and they can't find one

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

However in many situations in is your best chance of scoring.

I don't see how the starting pitcher effects the relative effectiveness of Gene Mauch vs Earl Weaver. I would be inclined to think that wasting outs against a great pitcher causes the same amount of damage as it does against anyone else.

[Davey Eckstein]

Originally Posted by ozziethesaint

come on now, there's no way to spin White, Sierra or Batsta and say those were even decent signings. so in the past the Twins may have made some great moves but currently not so hot

Plus how long have they needed a legit bat? 3-4 years now? and they can't find one

Yeah, Morneau has no power. And that Mauer guy's a slouch.

[ozziethesaint]

well if they had enough power bats in the middle of the lineup why were batista and white brought in to suppoesdly provide that?

[blgoblue2]

Originally Posted by mgsports79

because they can put Paul K. in LF.

mr. bush.plz launch rocket.kthanks.bye

[Davey Eckstein]

Originally Posted by ozziethesaint

well if they had enough power bats in the middle of the lineup why were batista and white brought in to suppoesdly provide that?

You're right, the Twins should've made no moves and started the season with 23 players.

Unfortunately, you can't pull "good" players out of thin air ozzie, and money doesn't grow on trees. You can't go out and buy a star player whenever you need one when you have Carl Pohlad as an owner. The Twins needed an OF and a 3B. They got them.

[JDOldSchool]

Davey and mlyons, thanks for successfully arguing my point while I was at work and taking a very refreshing nap. Sometimes I really feel like absolutely nobody understands the words I type (nor the point of this board) when I see posts like:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Do you seriously go around ridiculing every post you dont agree with? I have seen you ridicule many posts of many people, have rarely seen you make a constructive post. I am not going to source every post I make, maybe go watch a game or two. I dont know, but I wont source every comment I make, if you've never heard that statement before you are sheltered. And you are wrong about crappy offensive teams that dont score runs that say that. Any manager would play a 4-2 game over 12-8, its just common sense. And no I will not go and interview every manager for you to find out if that is really true.

I seriously go around commenting on posts that interest me. I have plenty of posts that are nothing more than a " indicating total agreement. Isn't the point of this place to engage in discussion, a free flow of ideas, especially differing ones? If you have an opinion that I disagree with or, as in this case, are spouting off information that is just outright wrong then I'm going to point that out to you.

I can't understand half of this post because it doesn't actually seem to be a reply to anything I said to you. Did I demand you have a source for something? I just re-checked my post. Nope. Nothing in there about sources. Also, if you had actually read my full post carefully, you would've noticed the little part where I said:

Originally Posted by Me

I absolutely depise this ridiculous "they play the right way" argument because it's usually referring to crappy offensive teams. . .

Now, for those of us who choose to actually read (and comprehend) the posts, it appears that I have just acknowledged others making the argument if in no other way than by the word "usually." It implies both multiple instances of hearing the quoted phrase and more than one possible meaning of said phrase. So, yes, I have heard of it before and yes, it is a stupid argument.

Lots of managers do lots of dumb things on a regular basis. Lots of managers are unaware of the myriad research that has revealed the flaws behind traditional ways of managing. And some side with tradition for the simple fact that doing anything else will get you fired if you don't succeed.

bergey, I'm not sure if I've ever even responded to a post of yours before this thread but it really grinds my gears that you've called me out for - as far as I can tell - being upset that I'm going to correct you when you're wrong and for having opinions of my own. Do I have that one right?

My posting style is blunt. I use exaggeration to make points. I have strong opinions and I express them. And yes, I think teams that rely on the sacrifice bunt and the hit and run are playing a bad style of offense. If you don't want to deal with it, I think there's an ignore feature somewhere here. I've never used it; I like to see when others disagree with me because it provides an excellent opportunity for discussion and debate.

Ahem, back to the topic.

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I don't see how the starting pitcher effects the relative effectiveness of Gene Mauch vs Earl Weaver. I would be inclined to think that wasting outs against a great pitcher causes the same amount of damage as it does against anyone else.

I may have this backwards, but aren't your outs even more valuable in a lower run environment? If that's so, wasting outs against a great pitcher causes more damage than against an average joe. Ping: Luis_Rivera or darkhorse or one of those guys on this one because I can't recall for sure right now.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by JDOldSchool

aren't your outs even more valuable in a lower run environment?

Yes.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by ozziethesaint

You had me with you until that statement. Castillo is so overrated it's not even funny. Punto should never be anything more than a backup INF'er. and Bartlett is so good that he had to be sent out to AAA earlier. and then I could go on for ages about crappy the Twins front office is, I mean hell come on, Rondell White? Ruben Sierra? Tony Batista?

You seemed to have missed some valuable inforamtion in the post your are referring to. Above average defensively! Many young players get sent back to AAA when their careers start out, why is that so unusual?

Baseball America and ESPN have consistenly over the past 5 years rated the Twins front office amongst the best in baseball. Lets hear you go on for ages on how "crappy" the Twins front office is, please do, It would be quite interesting.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by JDOldSchool

I may have this backwards, but aren't your outs even more valuable in a lower run environment? If that's so, wasting outs against a great pitcher causes more damage than against an average joe. Ping: Luis_Rivera or darkhorse or one of those guys on this one because I can't recall for sure right now.

Without thinking about it in great detail, I would think so. Just off the top of my head, I would assume that if you're facing a pitcher who already turns a high percentage of his batters faced into outs, you aren't going to want to waste any of them. OTOH, I don't think a manager should be worried about how good the other pitcher is, he should be sending people up to the plate who can generate offense.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JDOldSchool

"Designed to be played" according to whom? I absolutely depise this ridiculous "they play the right way" argument because it's usually referring to crappy offensive teams who don't play the right way because the right way to play is to score runs. Twins baseball is not the optimal run-producing machine and it goes beyond just not having the best players.

There you go JDOldSchool
according to "whom".

I cant make a good argument against most of your thoughts because they are such an elementary way of thinking. Most of you probably watch the game, have never played the game and think you are an expert. In reality, baseball is a strategic game that requires more then swinging a bat and hitting home runs.

I can't make a good argument against any of you, simply because you dont "get it"

When the 3 of you figure out that baseball(actually having an opponent trying to disrupt you from scoring runs) is different than bowling.(where your direct competition is the pins(knocking then down), FOLLOWED by beating your opponent, you might understand what I am saying. Your strategy would work wonderfully if you didnt have an opponent. In reality, baseball is a game with 2 teams on the field both trying their hardest to stop the opponent from scoring runs. It is not always possible to just score runs how you want to(home runs) and a lot of times you NEED to use "crappy strategy" to win.

I never once made the argument that over the course of the year you wouldnt score more runs by not bunting or moving runners. I will argue that you would win less games playing that way.

If you are facing Johan Santana and you get the leadoff guy on. You will have few chances that game to score, when you get a chance to get him in scoring position with 1 out, you are much better off then trying to piece together 2 more hits against a pitcher that gives up a batting average of less then .200. Niether is a great situation, but the chances are better of having 1 hit with 2 outs remaining OVER trying to get 2 hits with 3 outs remaining. You can agree or disagree but the simple fact is, this strategy wont score you as many runs but will lead to more success on the field ESPECIALLY against great pitchers.

[Davey Eckstein]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

There you go JDOldSchool
according to "whom".

I cant make a good argument against most of your thoughts because they are such an elementary way of thinking. Most of you probably watch the game, have never played the game and think you are an expert. In reality, baseball is a strategic game that requires more then swinging a bat and hitting home runs.

I can't make a good argument against any of you, simply because you dont "get it"

When the 3 of you figure out that baseball(actually having an opponent trying to disrupt you from scoring runs) is different than bowling.(where your direct competition is the pins(knocking then down), FOLLOWED by beating your opponent) Your strategy would work wonderfully if you didnt have an opponent. In reality, baseball is a game with 2 teams on the field both trying their hardest to stop the opponent from scoring runs. It is not always possible to just score runs how you want to(home runs) and a lot of times you NEED to use "crappy strategy" to win.

I never once made the argument that over the course of the year you wouldnt score more runs by not bunting or moving runners. I will argue that you would win less games playing that way.

If you are facing Johan Santana and you get the leadoff guy on. You will have few chances that game to score, when you get a chance to get him in scoring position with 1 out, you are much better off then trying to piece together 2 more hits against a pitcher that gives up a batting average of less then .200. Niether is a great situation, but the chances are better of having 1 hit with 2 outs remaining OVER trying to get 2 hits with 3 outs remaining. You can agree or disagree but the simple fact is, this strategy wont score you as many runs but will lead to more success on the field.

Ok.

[Davey Eckstein]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I cant make a good argument against most of your thoughts because they are such an elementary way of thinking.

Hate to break to you, but you're the one with the elementary thinking. We give you statistics and you throw them back in our face because they're "wrong". And by "wrong", you mean "I don't like what they say because they make my favorite team look worse than I thought." Well newsflash! Stats are records of what happened. They aren't wrong. It doesn't matter if you "watch the game". We all "watch the game". "Watching the game" doesn't tell us as much as you'd like to think. Period.

Most of you probably watch the game, have never played the game and think you are an expert.

I've played baseball. This does not make me an expert, nor does it make me ignorant. If you think playing the game makes you an expert, you need to take a look at Joe Morgan, Jeff Brantley, and Larry Bowa.

In reality, baseball is a strategic game that requires more then swinging a bat and hitting home runs.

It requires pitching and defense as well.

I can't make a good argument against any of you, simply because you dont "get it"

Pot.Kettle.Black.

You refuse to accept the information right in front of you because it doesn't support your arguement. You have nothing to back-up your arguement. I do.

When the 3 of you figure out that baseball(actually having an opponent trying to disrupt you from scoring runs) is different than bowling.(where your direct competition is the pins(knocking then down), FOLLOWED by beating your opponent) Your strategy would work wonderfully if you didnt have an opponent. In reality, baseball is a game with 2 teams on the field both trying their hardest to stop the opponent from scoring runs. It is not always possible to just score runs how you want to(home runs) and a lot of times you NEED to use "crappy strategy" to win.

No you don't. Look at the 2002 and 2003 A's. They did fine without wasting outs. Plenty of teams that don't use the old method of thinking are successful. You need to start thinking outside the box.

I never once made the argument that over the course of the year you wouldnt score more runs by not bunting or moving runners. I will argue that you would win less games playing that way.

I don't know what this means. If you're saying sac. bunting is a good method, you're wrong.

you are facing Johan Santana and you get the leadoff guy on.

Ok.

You will have few chances that game to score,

Exactly. Shouldn't getting a man out be more costly when facing Santana? The answer is yes, so why waste an out to move a man over?

when you get a chance to get him in scoring position with 1 out, you are much better off then trying to piece together 2 more hits against a pitcher that gives up a batting average of less then .200.

No, you aren't. The odds of the bunt being successful and then getting a hit afterwards when you have only two outs has a success rate below .200 I'd assume.

Niether is a great situation, but the chances are better of having 1 hit with 2 outs remaining OVER trying to get 2 hits with 3 outs remaining. You can agree or disagree but the simple fact is, this strategy wont score you as many runs but will lead to more success on the field ESPECIALLY against great pitchers.

Yeah? Prove it.

[Davey Eckstein]

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

There. A man on first with no outs is more likely to score than on man on second with one out. Sac. Bunting is not a good idea.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Davey Eckstein

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

There. A man on first with no outs is more likely to score than on man on second with one out. Sac. Bunting is not a good idea.

Great, nice work again. You blindly throw this chart at me again. I HAVE SEEN IT! It states a team will average more runs per inning with a man on first and 0 outs over a man on 2nd with 1 out. I understand exactly what the chart means. It doesnt give %'s it gives average amound of runs scored in them situations. That chart is irrelevent to your argument because am not disagreeing.

Please re-read my post, I admitted to that!

You guys and your strategys would win a lot of games 8-2, 10-4, 12-6... You would lose a lot of games 2-1, 4-3, 2-0.....

[Davey Eckstein]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Great, nice work again. You blindly throw this chart at me again. I HAVE SEEN IT! It states a team will average more runs per inning with a man on first and 0 outs over a man on 2nd with 1 out. I understand exactly what the chart means. It doesnt give %'s it gives average amound of runs scored in them situations. That chart is irrelevent to your argument because am not disagreeing.

Please re-read my post, I admitted to that!

But you are disagreeing, it's only going to hurt more to bunt with a dominant hurler on the mound.