Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 104

Thread: Article: The Blizzard of Oz

  1. #61
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,077
    Like
    14
    Liked 89 Times in 55 Posts
    Continue to cling to the player development exception instead of the norm.

    And again Torii Hunter isn't a .300 hitter because he did it (almost did it) twice in a 15 yr career. Players have lucky seasons all the time and Hunter had a .389 BAPIP (really lucky) last year. Do you also consider Kubel a .300 hitter?

  2. #62
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    487
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by kab21 View Post
    Continue to cling to the player development exception instead of the norm.

    And again Torii Hunter isn't a .300 hitter because he did it (almost did it) twice in a 15 yr career. Players have lucky seasons all the time and Hunter had a .389 BAPIP (really lucky) last year. Do you also consider Kubel a .300 hitter?
    You mean a "career-.300-hitter" right?...and No. Kubel nor Hunter qualify for that since both are under .280 for their respective MLB careers. But Hicks could have a said "lucky" season in MLB where he finishes the year over .290...pretty reasonable statement as I think the original was taken out of context. My bad for not clarifying.

    I will probably cling to the hope that Hicks will resemble Hunter statistically until I am proven wrong. This year in AAA will be very telling. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Hicks duplicated his numbers from AA. Would you be? If Hicks accomplishes this, what would you project his career-year stat-line to look like? (which is what my Hicks projection was intended to be)
    Last edited by mnfanforlife; 02-28-2013 at 02:37 AM.

  3. #63
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,077
    Like
    14
    Liked 89 Times in 55 Posts
    I don't even bother trying to predict lucky or unlucky seasons. Pretty much every hitter in the MLB aside butera, Dunn, Uggla and similar is capable of hitting .290. I see Hicks as a .260's hitter and would allow for a +/- 30-40 pt swing in peak lucky/unlucky BA's making it possible for him to hit anywhere from .230-.300 in any given season. Because that huge range I dislike bothering with peak projections. I'm significantly more interested in what a hitter is going to do each season.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    487
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by kab21 View Post
    I don't even bother trying to predict lucky or unlucky seasons. Pretty much every hitter in the MLB aside butera, Dunn, Uggla and similar is capable of hitting .290. I see Hicks as a .260's hitter and would allow for a +/- 30-40 pt swing in peak lucky/unlucky BA's making it possible for him to hit anywhere from .230-.300 in any given season. Because that huge range I dislike bothering with peak projections. I'm significantly more interested in what a hitter is going to do each season.
    So, you're more interested in what their "average" season may look like? I am more interested in what their "best" season may look like. Nothing wrong with either interest, is there?

  5. #65
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    856
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    Huh? Again, you went after kab's very rational, factually-backed approach to a poorly articulated, overzealous projection. And then backpeddled to state you had no idea what he meant. As is clear from this thread, the poster in question cannot be interpreted rationally. kab gave his argument far more credit than it deserves. As I'm doing to your "thoughts" now.
    I'm curious how many times you'll be willing to reply to my posts in this thread with a self-righteous tone while being completely wrong. We're up to three now. I gotta say, it takes some balls to continue to get high-handed even after you've been proven unequivacolly wrong. Good for you.

    As long as I'm here, my pointing out how embarrassed you should be about just how wrong you were wasn't my biggest moment. Sometimes softballs right down the middle are too tempting to pass up. I apologize for that, especially given the multiple threads recently about improving the tone. Those threads led to my attempt at a light, concilliatory response to your first post. I won't make that mistake again, but I was probably a little (or a lot) too gleeful and snarky when things took the predictable turn they did. Again, my apologies to the forum.

  6. #66
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,065
    Like
    97
    Liked 338 Times in 192 Posts
    Congrats, you are making less sense than the guy with the Hicks-Rodman comp.

  7. #67
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    487
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    Congrats, you are making less sense than the guy with the Hicks-Rodman comp.
    It takes a nimble mind to wrap your head around that one! But if you read the entire post, it makes perfect sense. The other comp was Torii Hunter....Did you even catch that? Or was your "reading" too selective?
    What problems do you have with comparing Hunter to Hicks?

  8. #68
    Owner All-Star John Bonnes's Avatar
    Posts
    2,286
    Like
    1
    Liked 105 Times in 57 Posts
    Blog Entries
    231
    I'm sorry I didn't check in on this thread before today.

    The Twins Daily community prides itself on the respectful way it treats fellow members of the community. Starting on the second page of this thread, a few condescending comments violated that statndard of behavior, and it's led to increasingly personal attacks. I suspect some of these comment are meant to help police the site, but you can't attack other members, even if it's not vulgar.

    We can't have the board operate like that. It only leads to additional attacks, both by the attacked and by others who view it as the way the board works. If, instead, you want to flag the initial post for the moderators, please do so.

    If you can't trust yourself to comment in that way, then please remove yourself from the conversation. (There are plenty of other threads and topics which you can enjoy.) I've already sent out a few warnings, and bans are next. Thank you for your understanding.

  9. #69
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer FrodaddyG's Avatar
    Posts
    536
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by John Bonnes View Post
    I'm sorry I didn't check in on this thread before today.

    The Twins Daily community prides itself on the respectful way it treats fellow members of the community. Starting on the second page of this thread, a few condescending comments violated that statndard of behavior, and it's led to increasingly personal attacks. I suspect some of these comment are meant to help police the site, but you can't attack other members, even if it's not vulgar.

    We can't have the board operate like that. It only leads to additional attacks, both by the attacked and by others who view it as the way the board works. If, instead, you want to flag the initial post for the moderators, please do so.

    If you can't trust yourself to comment in that way, then please remove yourself from the conversation. (There are plenty of other threads and topics which you can enjoy.) I've already sent out a few warnings, and bans are next. Thank you for your understanding.
    If you want to tailor the site rules to exclusively the lowest common denominator, guess what you'll be left with.

  10. #70
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,077
    Like
    14
    Liked 89 Times in 55 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mnfanforlife View Post
    So, you're more interested in what their "average" season may look like? I am more interested in what their "best" season may look like. Nothing wrong with either interest, is there?
    I clearly stated this in response to CDog on page 2 and yet you continued to argue.

    I now understand your comment. Ceiling doesn't equal Best season. Ceiling is what kind of player the prospect becomes for his career (or at least his 5 yr peak).

  11. #71
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    487
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by FrodaddyG View Post
    If you want to tailor the site rules to exclusively the lowest common denominator, guess what you'll be left with.
    hundreds of decent people?

  12. #72
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    487
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by kab21 View Post
    I clearly stated this in response to CDog on page 2 and yet you continued to argue.
    Yeah I believe I missed that comment entirely, my fault.

  13. #73
    Senior Member All-Star Badsmerf's Avatar
    Posts
    1,507
    Like
    12
    Liked 31 Times in 19 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by John Bonnes View Post
    I'm sorry I didn't check in on this thread before today.

    The Twins Daily community prides itself on the respectful way it treats fellow members of the community. Starting on the second page of this thread, a few condescending comments violated that statndard of behavior, and it's led to increasingly personal attacks. I suspect some of these comment are meant to help police the site, but you can't attack other members, even if it's not vulgar.

    We can't have the board operate like that. It only leads to additional attacks, both by the attacked and by others who view it as the way the board works. If, instead, you want to flag the initial post for the moderators, please do so.

    If you can't trust yourself to comment in that way, then please remove yourself from the conversation. (There are plenty of other threads and topics which you can enjoy.) I've already sent out a few warnings, and bans are next. Thank you for your understanding.
    With regards to this thread, I think it has been pretty civil. With as large as TD is, there is going to be quarrels. As long as it doesn't get too messy why interject? Discussions like this are how people learn the intricacies of this sport. I don't think anyone has purposefully tried to attack another with no tact. I realize that this site was not set-up to be rube-chat, but at the same time it is an internet forum and must be policed carefully.
    Do or do not. There is no try.

  14. #74
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,065
    Like
    97
    Liked 338 Times in 192 Posts
    Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one utterly confused by that.

  15. #75
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    487
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    TheLeviathan, could I please start a gentlemanly discussion with you?

    Do you believe the Hicks - Hunter comp to be valid? Why or why not?

  16. #76
    Head Moderator All-Star glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    4,500
    Like
    2,269
    Liked 290 Times in 162 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by FrodaddyG View Post
    If you want to tailor the site rules to exclusively the lowest common denominator, guess what you'll be left with.
    It takes intelligence and wisdom to utterly destroy a person's position without attacking the person.

    There are plenty of boards out there where people can engage in personal attacks. If someone likes reading such attacks or feuding, there are other places to do this. Here is a link to one of such sites.

    TD was conceived as a place where you can argue as passionately as you wish. You are perfectly free to tell someone that you believe that they are "absolutely wrong" then explain why you think that. But nothing good will ever come from characterizing someone's positions as "idiotic", "ridiculous", "stupid", or "clownish". This only leads to feuds. Again, there are other sites to go to for feuding and personal insults. In my opinion, those other sites are closer to a lowest common denominator than TD.

    Frodaddy, you are clearly a very intelligent person. I urge you to give some thought to the benefit of having a place where we can disagree as much as we want, but we fight using logic instead of personal attacks. I have noticed a positive change in your posts and the posts of some other members, so I remain hopeful that you will gradually come to see the policy in a more positive light.

    If it seems like I am lecturing, I apologize. But it seems important to make it as clear as possible why we are trying to reduce the personal attacks.
    Last edited by glunn; 02-28-2013 at 10:59 PM.

  17. #77
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,065
    Like
    97
    Liked 338 Times in 192 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    But nothing good will ever come from characterizing someone's positions as "idiotic", "ridiculous", "stupid", or "clownish".
    How about "makes no sense"? I'm now under the impression that such a reference is also not acceptable.

    As for "clownish" - it was intended as "not to be taken seriously" - a bit more harsh than that, no disagreement. But I didn't refer to the individual at all - I was clearly referencing the projection. And I made that clear multiple times. This entire post by you is lost in the fact that what is being accused of being poor discourse was in no way a personal attack.

  18. #78
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    487
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    It takes intelligence and wisdom to utterly destroy a person's position with attacking the person.
    Change the "with" to "without" and I could not agree more. I love debating about prospects, and I have been guilty of posting instigating comments in the past. I promise to debate respectfully with anyone from now forward.

  19. #79
    Head Moderator All-Star glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    4,500
    Like
    2,269
    Liked 290 Times in 162 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by mnfanforlife View Post
    Change the "with" to "without" and I could not agree more. I love debating about prospects, and I promise to do so respectfully with anyone on this site.
    Thanks for calling my attention to that grievous typo -- I have now fixed it.

  20. #80
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    487
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    What? No one is knocking down your door to take your rights. We're explaining why your projection isn't very realistic. Like if I predict 2013 will be a 50 homerun season for Mauer. COULD it happen? Sure, but it's so unrealistic that it's clownish. If you wish to project clownish numbers, no one is taking that right from you. It's just going to be pointed out that it's clownish.

    Now, if we see some changes in his approach (ala Hunter) then we can start to alter projections. But it's going to be some major changes to reach your projection. And the thing is, he could be a DAMN good player at significantly less than your projection.
    I completely agree with the second paragraph. But my projection was not nearly as wild as your example projection.
    How can my projection not be viewed as a probable career-year for Hicks in MLB? (.290 with 25 HR's and 35 Sb's)
    I am very sorry if I did not clarify the context of my projection better. But now you know.
    It is perfectly realistic, and I require that you explain why I should not hope for this....

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.