Friday, February 10, 2012

Three-Bagger: Mastroianni, Hughes & Vote Lindsay!

* In order to make room for newly signed reliever Francisco Cordero (whose one-year, $4.5 million contract is one of many that makes the Twins' Matt Capps signing look like an overpay), the Blue Jays designated 26-year-old outfielder Darin Mastroianni for assignment.

Yesterday, the Twins claimed Mastroianni off waivers. He profiles as a similar player to Ben Revere, in that he's a contact-hitting speedster who can handle all three outfield spots (but doesn't have the arm for RF) and steals tons of bases. Another similarity that he shares with Revere is that he has almost no power to speak of, with 14 homers in 549 minor-league games.

Whereas Revere spent much of his age 23 season in he majors last year, Mastroianni has played in only one big-league game despite being three years older. His .276/.358/.389 line last season as a 25-year-old in the hitter-friendly Pacific Coast League inspires little confidence in his ability to make any kind of offensive impact. His best offensive skill has been taking walks, but he'll have a difficult time translating that to the majors where pitchers will fearlessly attack.

On the surface, the Twins appear to view Mastroianni as a cheap replacement for Jason Repko, given that he can run and swings from the right side. It's never bad to have additional outfield depth, but still one must wonder whether this marginal talent is deserving of a spot on the 40-man roster.

* Luke Hughes recently hurt his shoulder while sliding into home plate during winter ball in Australia. Terry Ryan says that the injury is not believed to be overly serious, but the Twins had him scheduled for an examination this week.

Given that he's out of options and provides versatile right-handed roster depth, Hughes seemed like an extremely good bet to make the 25-man roster out of spring training. If he's healthy, that will remain true, but now there's a chance he'll have to open the season on the disabled list.

* Lindsay Guentzel has officially made the first cut for MLB Fan Cave and is among the 50 finalists. She's the only Twins fan in the group. Please join me in showing some Minnesota love by voting for her and helping support her cause.

45 comments:

TT said...

"(whose one-year, $4.5 million contract is one of many that makes the Twins' Matt Capps signing look like an overpay),"

Actually it does the opposite. Capps is a 27 year old who has had one season with a WHIP over 1.3, with a 1.203 WHIP last year.

Cordero is a 37 year old coming off his best season with a 1.019 WHIP last year. But he had WHIP's over 1.4 the two years prior to that. He's matched Capp's WHIP last year once since 2003.

Last year was the first time since 2007 that Cordero walked fewer than 30 batters or fewer than 4 per nine innings. Capps has never had more than 20 walks and his BB/9 last year was under 2.

Cordero, coming off a career year at 37, basically got the same money as Capps for next year when you count Capps' buyout. But the Twins also have an option for Capps in 2013. That makes Capps contract a better deal even if he weren't already a better bet for next year.

Steve L. said...

^ ?! Laughing. Out. Loud.

Anonymous said...

Are you laughing at yourself, Steve, because you are unable to answer TT's points?

Tom said...

I actually think $4.5mil for a 37-year old reliever is an overpay even moreso than Capps. (But Capps is definitely an overpay, and just because the Twins can choose to overpay him another $5 mil next year doesn't make it a better deal, it makes it worse. This would be compounding the same error for a fourth time)

But it's absolutely hilarious that TT quoted BB/9 to make his case. You just can't make this stuff up.

Anonymous said...

Why is it funny that he quoted walk rate? Is that not relevant for relievers?

Tom said...

Read the comments on the last post. TT went to great lengths to demonstrate how K/9 means nothing and is irrelevant. Funny how nearly the exact same stat is now relevant since it fits his agenda.

Anonymous said...

K/9 and BB/9 are not almost the same stat. TT's problem with K/9 is that it puts emphasis on caring how outs are made. His contention is that an out is (pretty much) an out.

For your criticism to hold water, TT would have to be touting a something that measured the ratio of free passes that came from HBP vs BB or something like that.

Mike said...

If Capps returns to his 2010 form this next year, he would be well worth the option year. If he doesn't, the buyout is small. I'm assuming that's what TT is referencing when he says that the option year makes Capps' deal better. It locks in a good deal in the event that he pitches like he did in 2010.

Anonymous said...

I would assume that some of these massive quote guys never played the game at a reasonably high level--high school, college or higher. I get that feeling because most ex-players are not all about stats. It should all be placed(stats) in its proper perspective.
Can you have a discussion without all those quotes--it is such a know it all attitude?

Tom said...

Okay, "Anonymous", I'll bite. A pitcher's job is to get outs, as TT mentioned in the K/9 thread, and BB/9 has absolutely nothing to do with outs. Which is the more succesful pitcher: guy who gives up 3 walks but gets 3 strikeouts and gives up no runs (BB/9 of 27.0) or a guy who give up 13 hits in one inning, allowing 10 runs, but walking none for a BB/9 of 0?

If K/9 has nothing to do with outs (it does), what the hell does BB/9 have to do with it?

You can't have it both ways, TT. I mean, "Anonymous".

Nick N. said...

Francisco Cordero last year: 69.2 IP, 2.45 ERA, 1.02 WHIP, 37 SV (86%)
Matt Capps last year: 65.2 IP, 4.25 ERA, 1.20 WHIP, 15 SV (63%)

Cordero, last 3 years: 209 IP, 2.84 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, 116 SV (87%)
Capps, last 3 years: 193 IP, 4.01 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 84 SV (81%)

I do think it's funny, TT, how all of a sudden BB/9 is the only relevant statistic in judging a relief pitcher. How blatantly do you isolate numbers to support your lame arguments? My gawd.

Does the number of hits a pitcher allows hold no importance, in your mind? Because, to me, a hit is generally more damaging than a walk, given that it can drive in runs and become a double, a triple or a homer.

Over the last three years, Cordero has allowed 175 hits, including 45 extra-base hits and 13 homers. Capps has allowed 214 hits, including 69 extra-base hits and 26 homers.

In a late-inning reliever, I'll take the guy that prevents game-breaking hits even if he hands out a few extra walks, particularly when you consider that Cordero has obviously done a decent job of pitching around those walks giving his ERA numbers and high save conversion rates.

Yes, Cordero is 10 years older, but you said yourself that he's "coming off his best season" whereas Capps is coming off his second poor season in the last three, one in which he was stripped of closer duties due to ineptitude. I think Capps is a fine pitcher, and will probably bounce back this year, but there's really no reason he should be making as much money as a guy with Cordero's track record who is coming off an excellent campaign.

Tom said...

Thanks Nick for doing the research to prove what most of us already know: that TT cherrypicks stats to support his own case. This thread really strips him of any credibility - now I know it's not worth anyone's time to pay attention to his posts, because they're carefully constructed not to be insightful or objective but to push forth some agenda.

My only question for TT is this: why? You obviously did research to pull your stats. And I'm sure you came upon the same stats as Nick. At this point you could have done a couple things: a) ignored the topic altogether, seeing that Cordero has been much better than Capps over the last 3 years; b) been honest and objective about it, and said, well, Cordero may have been better, but Capps is younger, and his deal is thus much better.

Yet you chose c): pick and choose stats to support your case, willfully leave out the ones that don't, and then present the cherrypicked stats as the be-all end-all to the discussion, simply to prove someone wrong (however unscrupulously).

So my question: why? Why would you go through all the trouble?

Jim H said...

I, for one, appreciate TT's comments on these blogs. Not because he is always "right" or because I always agree with him. It is because he comes from a different place and makes you think about opinions often presented as fact.

Most blogs and nearly all comments on those blogs are opinions. Often they are supported by stats, presented as "facts". This is why I read them. Bloggers usually do a good job of collecting and presenting stats/facts that tend to back their opinions. If you look for them, you can usually find stats or present them in another way to support a different view. That is what TT does.

Since it was brought up again, I will present another view of K/9. If a starting pitcher has a k/9 rate of 9 strikeouts per 9 innings, that is considered high. If you have a guy that gets half that, 4.5 strikeouts per 9 innings that is considered very low. Now the guy who gets 9 strikeouts per nine innings still has to ge 67% of his outs some other way. The guy with half the strikeout rate has to get 83% of his outs another way.

There is a big difference between nearly 70% and just over 80% but by looking at this way, you realize that the difference between a so called power pitcher and a finese pitcher is not quite as much as it seems. If all you consider is k/9 rates, you are probably missings quite a bit about both pitchers.

Anonymous said...

I don't think this issue is as black and white as some of these coments would suggest. Although I agree that a walk rate isn't the only factor to consider when evaluating a player, it certainly comes into play in how the Twins (in particular) evaluate their pitchers. The Capps signing wasn't intended to be the missing piece to a World Series run.

Nick -- I certainly agree with many of your opinions on this blog, but it is hard to ignore your comment, "Yes, Cordero is 10 years older". For a team with pretty low expectations, I'd prefer the potential upside of Capps over the aging Cordero for the same money.

Tom -- I disagree with your "lack of credibility" stance in regards to TT. You later cite TT's desire to push forth some agenda. This is a baseball blog. This isn't heavy lifting. Bizarre refences to "agendas" cheapen your argument.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate TT's takes too. Most bloggers and commenters regurgitate each others' opinions. TT challenges those opinions - and he's probably playing devil's advocate a lot of the time.

It would be more constructive if you argue the points rather than start pouting and name calling.

TT actually framed his argument around WHIP, which is very relevant for a relief pitcher. You then focused on the BB/9 thing (which is also relevant for a relief picther by the way).

Talk about cherry picking, the whole point of this was comparing Capps' contract to one specific pitcher who just signed. How about comparing him to the rest of the league's closers and their salaries? Hell, how about comparing his deal to one relevant to Twins fans... maybe one who was pretty much the other alternative to Capps. That one guy who signed with Texas.

TT said...

"I do think it's funny, TT, how all of a sudden BB/9 is the only relevant statistic in judging a relief pitcher. How blatantly do you isolate numbers to support your lame arguments?"

Nick -

WHIP measures walks and HITS per Inning Pitched. But you knew that. The point was that Cordero's numbers last year were considerably better than his previous performances almost across the board. He had a career year at age 37.

As for CHERRY PICKING ... what do you call going back three years that just happen to include by far the worst year of Capps career at age 25, but exclude the two years before that when he had his best two years by many measures? Comparable to 2010.

BTW, for all the K/9 afficianados, last year Cordero had the worst K/9 of his major league career.

TT said...

"That one guy who signed with Texas."

I think people need to get over this. Nathan decided not to sign with the Twins because he wants a ring. There is NO amount of money that was going to buy him away from Texas.

Tom said...

"I don't think this issue is as black and white as some of these coments would suggest."

This is exactly my point. It's rarely ever black and white. Which is why some of TT's angles are so frustrating. What's wrong with using stats to come to our own conclusions about things? For example, why can't we look at a guy like Hendricks and say, well, his low K/9 doesn't project as an ace, but his BB/9 and good ERA hints he's got good control, so he's worth watching as a mid-rotation type of guy.

Instead, some folks have the tendency to automatically disagree with something, and then desperately find some statistics to prove/disprove a point. I just don't understand what this accomplishes.

Anonymous said...

^Case in point Tommy. TT conveniently ignores the box you put him in and shifts the focus to other minutia. So it goes.

Anonymous said...

Tom,

Thanks for the follow up. I agree with your last point about trying to find stats to support a stance, but I don't think that TT is alone in that regard. I was really reacting to your assertion that he was pushing some sort of "agenda". Seemed a little bit overstated to me. Not in every instance, but TT does at times agree with Nick and frequently adds value to these posts.

TT said...

"Case in point Tommy. TT conveniently ignores the box you put him in"

Actually, I haven't read "Tommy"'s posts. I stopped after it was clear he couldn't distinguish between K/9 and BB/9. He obviously has no idea what they actually mean and there is no point in discussing it. I doubt he even realizes that ERA is the same as ER/9.

Anonymous said...

I think people need to get over this. Nathan decided not to sign with the Twins because he wants a ring. There is NO amount of money that was going to buy him away from Texas.

My point is that Capps' contract doesn't look bad compared to some other options, particularly Joe Nathan's.

For the last several weeks, every time a reliever signs a cheap deal, Gleeman and Nick post their clever passive aggressive blog posts and tweets about how terrible Capps' contract is. I guess we'll see; and if they're right, we'll hear about it.

TT said...

"if they're right, we'll hear about it."

We'll hear about it regardless. There have been enough guys listed to virtually guarantee there will be at least one candidate for an argument about who the Twins "should" have signed instead of Capps.

Its unlikely Capps will have the best numbers across the board of all the free agent relievers signed this winter. If nothing else, his K/9 will be lower than someone's. That will be enough to "prove" he was overpaid.

Tom said...

"I stopped after it was clear he couldn't distinguish between K/9 and BB/9. He obviously has no idea what they actually mean."

This reminds me of the great Richard Pryor skit where his girlfriend catches him red-handed with another woman yet he still denies it: "Who you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"

Just admit you're wrong, TT. Admit it, and let's move on. You yourself said yesterday that the most important thing for pitchers is outs so K/9 is irrelevant. BB/9 has nothing whatsoever to do with outs, yet you use it here to support a point. You are backing yourself into a corner and it's frankly painful to witness. I sort of feel sorry for you and wish you'd quit, but whatever.

Mike said...

"We'll hear about it regardless. There have been enough guys listed to virtually guarantee there will be at least one candidate for an argument about who the Twins "should" have signed instead of Capps."

I'm sure that's true. I don't think anyone is claiming that Capps is a great signing, given the money. But I certainly don't think it's unreasonable.

Personally, I'll be interested to see how he does compared to Jonathan Broxton, who Twins fans seemed to really want signed by the team in the offseason. They're less than 1 year apart in age, they both made approximately $7 million in 2011, Capps signed for $4.5 million this year, Broxton signed for a guaranteed $4 million plus incentives. Both had injury concerns last year, although Broxton's seem much more significant. When they did pitch, neither one was generally impressive in 2011. And Broxton also had a fairly poor 2010.

But for some reason, a ton of fans seemed ticked that the Twins didn't go for Broxton- I guess he's a much better deal at a guaranteed $4 million plus incentives than Capps is at $4.5 guaranteed? Not that I'm refuting that the Twins couldn't have done better in the offseason as far as relief pitching, but everything is clearer in hindsight.

harcot37 said...

"every time a reliever signs a cheap deal... how terrible Capps' contract is"

not to play devils advocate but dont you think that if there are so many relievers signing cheap deals that maybe capps' deal was a little excessive? i mean they wouldnt really be able to say it was a bad deal if all these relievers were signing for more, but they arent, so isnt that the whole point? see heres what everyones talking about tt, you have a predetermined judgment about something and all the evidence in the world wont sway you. you dont think capps is overpaid, yet all these similar relievers are getting less. so you think the league is underpaying everyone else? i just dont get it bud.

Anonymous said...

Tom, please read through the comments again. K/9 is not parallel to BB/9. The opposite of a strikeout is not a walk.

You don't have to agree with TT's criticism of K/9, but you should at least try to understand his criticism before attacking it.

Anonymous said...

you dont think capps is overpaid, yet all these similar relievers are getting less

The problem is who you point to as being similar relievers. That's when you start choosing factors that support your case and leave out the ones that don't.

TT said...

If Capps pitches like he did two years ago for the Twins, he was a great signing. They have an option on a second year for less money than they paid him last year.

TT said...

" all these similar relievers are getting less."

Joe Nathan got a lot more. Is he similar? I don't think the comparisons are being made to "similar relievers". They are being made to cheaper relievers.

TT said...

Cordero is getting paid the same amount as Capps. And, while I pointed out differences that I think make Capps a better deal, I think Cordero is pretty similar.

Mike said...

"I don't think the comparisons are being made to "similar relievers". They are being made to cheaper relievers."

Of course. Which is why when some of these cheaper relievers inevitably perform better than Capps, people will say that the Twins should have known and signed these pitchers to the cheap deal, knowing that they would outperform their value.

When people say the Twins overpaid for Capps, I have to wonder what they think the market would have demanded for him. I have a hard time thinking another team wouldn't have signed him for at least $4 million. That isn't a huge gamble in terms of amount of money and he's shown that he can be worth much more than that if he has a bounce back season. But we'll see.

Nick N. said...

For the last several weeks, every time a reliever signs a cheap deal, Gleeman and Nick post their clever passive aggressive blog posts and tweets about how terrible Capps' contract is.

To be fair, I thought the criticism of the Capps was way over the top. But that was based on my sense that the Twins should be in a position where overpaying a free agent by a million or two won't have much affect on their overall strategy. What frustrates me is that they've now been watching countless comparable relief arms come off the board at a fraction of the price while crying poor.

It seems clear to me at this point that Capps could have been had for less if the Twins had waited out the market. And if not, they should have just let him go, taken the draft pick, and signed multiple established vets with that same money. He's a fine reliever but he's simply not that special.

WHIP measures walks and HITS per Inning Pitched. But you knew that.

Yes, and it's a good measure for relief pitchers. It is not the only measure. WHIP does not weigh the importance of walks vs. hits, and as I explained above, I believe there's an undeniable difference. You yourself have relentlessly hammered home the importance of save conversion rate for closers in the past -- this is an area in which Cordero has been consistently superior to Capps, despite the walks.

There's also the small matter of allowing runs to cross the plate. Cordero hasn't had an ERA over 3.86 since 2000. Capps has had a higher ERA twice in the last three years. Allowing fewer base runners doesn't help much when those base runners are more frequently crossing the plate.

You can talk about Cordero's age, or his walks, or whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that he has been consistently healthy and effective for a decade. Capps has been bad more often than good in the recent past.

birdofprey said...

Um, you guys? The horse is dead, so stop beating it. :-). We don't know if Capps will be overpaid relative to the other available talent at the time. Could the Twins have signed him for a little less? Probably. Could the Twins have waited and signed two or three alternative guys for the same money? Probably. Could the Twins have opened up their purse strings and plucked off one more free agent reliever? Probably.

Are Cordero's numbers better than Capps' numbers over the last three years? Who cares? Maybe the Twins' evaluation considered a longer time frame. Maybe they didn't sign Coffey because they are absolutely convinced that Jason Bulger or Alex Burnett will make him look silly in 2012.

I love the dialogue on here, because I find most of the contributors to be thoughtful, fair, and interesting. Every once in awhile we all step in the stat poop, but thanks for wiping off your shoes and stepping back up. TT^ included.

USAFChief said...

Tom, please read through the comments again. K/9 is not parallel to BB/9. The opposite of a strikeout is not a walk.

You don't have to agree with TT's criticism of K/9, but you should at least try to understand his criticism before attacking it.


And you should try to understand why TT is being accused of being...um...less than honest when he argues to the ends of the earth the K/9 doesn't measure anything...and then turns around and uses BB/9 in the very next post.

Every weakness of K/9 that TT hammers on--or invents--applies in exactly the same ways to BB/9.


WHIP measures walks and HITS per Inning Pitched. But you knew that. The point was that Cordero's numbers last year were considerably better than his previous performances almost across the board. He had a career year at age 37.


Nice dodge, TT. Why don't you answer Nicks's point about BB/9, which is the stat YOU brought up, and the one his point addressed?

Anonymous said...

You guys should all find something better to do with your winter. Nitpicking offseason moves from Nov until April is pointless. There is no way to tell how any of these moves will pan out until they start playing regular season games.

Getting after one another for who makes the better argument about contract comparisons between Capps and Cordero...who cares?

By the way, using all caps to hammer home a point is more than a bit lame.

Here's some helpful advice....find some hobbies, follow other sports, go to movies, exercise...just stop obsessing about the minutia of the Twins "hot stove" winter moves, clear your mind and you might be able to enjoy a baseball season instead of whining and griping from one January to the next.

I have learned my lesson. Reading blogs about sports is a terrible way to spend time and even worse is reading the reactions. Have fun with your mindless sniping. Some of you should brush up on your grammar as well. Respond with outrage if you want, but it will fall on deaf ears. I won't read it.

TT said...

"You yourself have relentlessly hammered home the importance of save conversion rate for closers in the past -- this is an area in which Cordero has been consistently superior to Capps, despite the walks. "

2007 - Capps 86% Cordero 86%
2008 - Capps 81% Cordero 85%
2009 - Capps 84% Cordero 91%
2010 - Capps 88% Cordero 83%
2011 - Capps 63% Cordero 86%

As usual, factually you are obviously wrong. But your basic point is correct. Cordero has blown fewer saves 3 of the last 5 years. I would still prefer Capps given Cordero's age.



"Yes, and it's a good measure for relief pitchers. It is not the only measure. WHIP does not weigh the importance of walks vs. hit"

No it doesn't, which is why I mentioned BB/9.

"Cordero hasn't had an ERA over 3.86 since 2000. Capps has had a higher ERA twice in the last three years."

I think ERA is pretty meaningless for relievers, although it probably has more for one inning closers.

Again with cherry picking three years. Let me posit that if Matt Capps entire career was those three years, I would agree with you. But Capps had better ERA's than Cordero three of the last five years.

"You can talk about Cordero's age, or his walks, or whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that he has been consistently healthy and effective for a decade. "

He just took a $7.6 million pay cut. Apparently there weren't many teams in baseball that agreed with you.

" Why don't you answer Nicks's point about BB/9"

I did, why don't you try reading it?

"which is the stat YOU brought up"

WHIP is also a stat I brought up. Nick decided to pretend I only mentioned BB/9.

"Every weakness of K/9 that TT hammers on--or invents--applies in exactly the same ways to BB/9."

Chief - you are either too drunk to know any better or don't care whether what you say is true.

TT said...

"Are Cordero's numbers better than Capps' numbers over the last three years? Who cares? Maybe the Twins' evaluation considered a longer time frame."

The Twins have said that Capps pitched hurt most of last year. So maybe, just maybe, they are ignoring his results from last year because they aren't very useful for projecting his likely future performance. That would make any effort to find an explanation for their decision in the statistics pretty futile.

The claim Nick made was that Cordero's contract made "the Twins' Matt Capps signing look like an overpay". But the Twins contract with Capps is more favorable to the team than Cordero's contract with Toronto. And Cordero is not clearly a higher value player. It actually makes it clear that Capps contract was right around his market value.

Anonymous said...

What a shallow assessment of Mastroaini - this guy actually is pretty good from what I can see

I checked his records - an All Star in the High A ball and also in Double AA ball.
Hit something like .360 in Venezuela in 2010. Got bounced around like a yoyo in Toronto in 2011 and had an off year - but still scored over 90 runs and had about 40 sbs

Led Blue Jays system in outfield assists last 3 years.

Great athletic ability from every scouting report I could find - but just not a Toronto type player as they are a homer happy team.

Why wouldnt you be optimistic when you get a cheap pickup like this who is 26?

Jim H said...

Interesting discussion here, although I don't understand why it can't be a bit more civil.

My opinion is that TT's point in his original post, that the Cordero signing doesn't support Nick's position very well, is largely true.

TT's opinion that Capps is being paid very close to market value, is also likely true.

Nick's opinion that Capps is being overpaid and that The Twins could have signed 2 effective relievers for the same money, might very well be "proved" to be true. Although that doesn't necessarily mean the Twins will have done the "wrong" thing.

Since, Nick is largely "fair", I suspect that if Capps has a good year, and rest of the bullpen is largely effective, he won't waste his time trying to "prove" anything. Gleeman, on the other hand......

Kelly Vance said...

further to what Jim said.

Look, you guys. TT and TT adversaries. You bore us with the digs and slams. Knock it off already.

Like many others, I come on here to hear news and insights about my beloved Twins.

I don't care which of you guys is smarter than the other or right or wrong. Stop trying to show who can piss the furthest. You are wrecking an otherwise good blog.

Kelly Vance said...

Gee fellas, I did not mean to halt all discussion. I just want a blog with more info and fewer personal grudges/duels.

But much of what many of you say is just an opinion anyway. And reasonable minds may differ...for example....

I do think it is true that those who played the game at a high level...adult leagues for example ... are less caught up with stats and give more importance to "making the play."

For us, a player can hit .200 but be a clutch hitter or fielder and if his hits come at opportune times that increases his value beyond his numbers. How many times do we see Cuddy (who I love BTW) hit into a DP with guys in scoring position or chase a pitch he could not even reach (low and outside usually). Then a guy like Valencia parks one with 2 guys on. Yet again, if Butera throws out 20 guys trying to steal second, but hits for low average, he still helps his team by erasing a potential run at second. Throwing out a baserunner should (in my opinion) count as much as a hit, because it helps his team win the game. Like an INT in football. Pitchers that stop losing streaks, for example, are called "stoppers" and are highly valued for a reason that goes beyond their ERA or W/L record.

Last year in a championship game I had a 3rd baseman that went O-fer. He was down, but in the last inning he made a fiendish fielding play that stopped a double and got us the second out in the bottom of the last inning. Instead of a double that potentially started a rally, he got us an out. I didn't care that he went O-fer because his play made a big difference in the game.

I realize there are stats for clutch plays too. But stats can be made to say almost anything you want them to say if you look at them from different viewpoints and vary sample sizes to leave out contrary indications.

I hope the Twins right their ship and overachieve this year and I hope we all have reasons to be happy and less angry about wasted opportunities.

Mike said...

"Gee fellas, I did not mean to halt all discussion."

I don't think you killed the conversation. I just think that people don't have anything else to say about the Capps contract.

"For us, a player can hit .200 but be a clutch hitter or fielder and if his hits come at opportune times that increases his value beyond his numbers."

I think that's true, although it's hard to get a feel for "clutch" contributions. I liked Cuddy as well, but it really did seem like he would ground into a double play at the worst times...

TT said...

Kelly -

Good post. Stats almost never tell the full story, we are "seeing through the glass darkly". And I think Mike is right, you didn't kill the conversation. I had nothing more to say, probably several posts before I stopped saying it.

Anonymous said...

http://twinsdaily.com/entry.php/2150-Thrylos98-Scott-Baker-and-Twins-Daily-Leadership?s=7d6a858e58634b9e98b673a4dcd2b0a3&bt=5122#comment5122

Nick Nelson, you, Seth Stohs and Brock Beauchamp all deserve to have your fucking skin ripped from your fleshes for defending that piece of shit Thrylos! You three pieces of shit are the reason why Twins Daily is a total hellhole! Is it any wonder why clueless dipshits like ChiTownTwinsFan (who deserves to drown in his own vomit) doesn't know why people hate Thrylos?

I would love to see the three of you get pushed down a bunch of stairs breaking every single bone in your worthless bodies by a bunch of cannibals who would make you into a tasty dinner while your boy toy Thrylos is tied to the ground watching in horror as homeless people use him as a toilet! That also goes for old nurse, beckmt, JB_Iowa, birdwatcher, mike wants wins and especially glunn as well! None of you dipshits would be missed!

And if you stupid motherfuckers want to rebuttal, then do it here below: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/940567-tomb-raider-anniversary/41635609

I'm the one called "fuzzyshoggoth"