Note: If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, don't say it here. Comments deleted on a whim.
This is about the best possible news. If he's really this horrible, there's no way he can compete for a job.
I do not understand all of the Batista bashing. This guy is the best thing to happen to the 2006 Twins. Everyone talks about how we let Ortiz go when we could have had him for nothing. The fact of the matter is that the inept Twins coaching staff could not develop Ortiz.
Batista is a blessing because he is a power hitter that has already reached his potential and will not require development from the Twins coaching staff. The Batista signing is the one thing that can send the Twins from Back-to-Back-to-Back Division Championships to World Series Champions.
Batista is the BEST POWER HITTER the Twins have had since KILLABREW. Period. End of discussion. Look for Batista to be batting cleanup for the AL All-Star Team in July.
And he will be a 2006 AL MVP CANIDATE. I guarantee it.
Heh. I can't quite tell if the above post is a joke or not, but I'm hoping it isn't just because it would 10 times more amusing that way. The stuff about batting cleanup for the All-Star team and being an MVP candidate seem a little too over the top though, which would be a shame.
BTW ... If true, it certainly doesn't surprise me that someone who thinks anything written above "do[es] not understand all of the Batista bashing." That's like writing about how buying 500 lottery tickets each week is the best way to invest money and then saying, "I don't understand why the balance in my bank account keeps decreasing." One thing implies the other thing.
What's the old saying about opinions being like assholes? Batista for MVP!
Jorge sounds like a typical fan whose team has just lost in the finals. Gotta find the scapegoat and place the blame ASAP.
Ravi is over the top, serious or not. But no more over the top and no less amusing than most of the Batista bashers. You can almost see the veins rise in their individual foreheads. Hilarious.
Jorge sounds like a typical fan whose team has just lost in the finals. Gotta find the scapegoat and place the blame ASAP.
Yes, either that or he watched Batista play more recently than 99.9% of Twins fans and simply didn't think he was very good.
But no more over the top and no less amusing than most of the Batista bashers.
Really, saying Batista will bat cleanup for the All-Star team and be an MVP candiate is "no more over the top" than the anti-Batista stuff I've written here? Like you said, "Hilarious."
It's a tough battle to win. If you show how horrible he's been using numbers, you get accused of not watching the games and not knowing what really helps a team win. And then when someone reports that they actually watched Batista and thought he was horrible, they get accused of simply being an angry fan.
Meanwhile, the guy posted OPS totals of .663 and .728 in his last two big-league seasons, spent 2005 playing for a Japanese League team that decided they didn't want him for a second year, and could only manage a non-guaranteed contract with a major-league team for 2006. I think I'll take that over "but he's a power hitter!"
(Cue Fran, Roger, CMatthewson, Nick N., and the rest of the Batista Defenders, because lord knows you can't possibly let one negative mention of him go by without responding to it like someone has just insulted your girlfriend. Your really ugly girlfriend.)
When's the last time we could criticize TR for making a move too fast?
Fact is, we could have had Branyan for a fraction of the cost of Batista, and he's less of a liability on D and a good bet to post an OBP over .300. He knows how to take a walk!
When's the last time we could criticize TR for making a move too fast?
This is an interesting point regarding the offseason, and particularly the third-base situation, but I don't think Branyan is a good example to use because his defense stinks and he can't hit lefties. But yeah, had Ryan not signed Batista and promised him a legit chance at an everyday job, there were a few interesting options who emerged later in the offseason (Koskie being the main one, and Branyan being a lesser one).
By the way, for anyone sick of the Batista bashing and/or the Batista bashing bashing (plus the Batista bashing bashing bashing, which is mostly done by me), the "Open Chat" title of this entry implies you're both free to and encouraged to talk about anything.
I heard there was a football game on last night, for instance. Plus, the fatso who runs this blog is down 20 pounds in 26 days and the Wolves are back to sucking.
did anyone notice that Mike Holmgreen apparently did not shake Cowher's hand? There was a solid minute of air time with Cowher just standing around center field and I could actually hear some ABC staffperson on the field say "I'll go try to find him." Because sports commentators are forced to be as unintersting as possible, they didn't say anything, but this is one of the oddest things I've seen in a long time.
did anyone notice that Mike Holmgreen apparently did not shake Cowher's hand? There was a solid minute of air time with Cowher just standing around center field and I could actually hear some ABC staffperson on the field say "I'll go try to find him." Because sports commentators are forced to be as unintersting as possible, they didn't say anything, but this is one of the oddest things I've seen in a long time.
I didn't notice this (I was barely paying attention at that point), but I assume it's because Holmgren is upset with the refereeing? If so, what exactly does that have to do with Cowher? Did he want Cowher to refuse the calls or forfeit the game?
yeah I don't know. its possible they shook hands or something after they went to break, but no one ever mentioned it or replayed it. par for the course, no mention of it on ESPN that I saw. I suppose Deadspin will probably have figured it out by tommorrow, so I guess I'll have to wait till then.
...I assume it's because Holmgren is upset with the refereeing?
So these NFL referee crews are all-stars, huh? Apparently, like great quarterbacks, great officials also hail from western Pennsylvania.
(Cue Fran, Roger, CMatthewson, Nick N., and the rest of the Batista Defenders, because lord knows you can't possibly let one negative mention of him go by without responding to it like someone has just insulted your girlfriend. Your really ugly girlfriend.)
I find it hilarious that I get labeled as a "Batista defender" on Gleeman's board and get scolded for being an irrational Batista hater on the Twinkie Town boards. Really I'm relatively neutral on his acquisition. I think that Aaron tends to be a little overly critical of the signing, while several members of the Twinkie Town tend to be a little overly optimistic. He is a fairly cheap and low-risk investment and can be cut in spring training at minimal cost if he is really as bad as Jorge makes him out to be. Granted, that would leave us in the same position we were last year at third base (very bad), but it's not like that many realistic and attractive options have floated by and been missed because of signing Batista. Ryan should have pulled the trigger on the Koskie deal regardless of having signed Batista.
If TR truly backed himself into a corner by promising Batista play-time and that is what prevented him from acquiring Koskie, then I will blame Ryan for making such a foolish promise (I don't know why you would do something like that with any player, particularly one as questionable as TB), but I refuse to get upset about the signing in general, because I just don't think it was that bad. There is some potential for Batista to help this club.
Personally, my defense of Batista was always an attempt to show that he did some things well while others focused on one thing he didn't. The other point was my concern with all the abusive comments aimed at him. I will never understand why people on these sites can't debate the pros and cons of a player without degrading that player, personally.
The good news, if he plays as poorly in spring training as this person indicates he did in the D.R., he will be gone at a minimal cost and the Twins will proceed to plan B...whatever that may be. Who knows, maybe Cuddyer will return to 3B and have a very good season. If he does, many of us would be happy...although I suspect not as much as Cuddy himself.
Yes, either that or he watched Batista play more recently than 99.9% of Twins fans and simply didn't think he was very good.
I assume one or more Twins' scouts took a long look and came to the conclusion that Batista was worth the minimal investment that's been made in him. No offense to Jorge, but I will give their collective opinion more weight than that of a solitary fan with an axe to grind.
I would have preferred Koskie, but there's little evidence the Twins were offered similar trade terms and it's water under the bridge, in any case. Maybe it turns out TBat does stink in four countries, but I really do find the amount of words and emotion spilled over a seven or eight hitter amusing. If there was a no-brainer alternative guaranteed to be significantly better, things might be different. I don't see one.
As for that football game, it was refreshing to see Hines Ward give some credit to his teammates rather than talking nonstop about himself in the manner of another wide receiver who's played his home games in PA recently. I thought the collective images of both teams this year were much more likeable than some of those in the recent past.
...and the Wolves are back to sucking.
What else is new? Speaking of wasted words and emotion, those guys are the poster children.
Aaron, Branyan isn't that bad defensively. He isn't great, but he isn't far below average. Of course he would have still been a decent option for teh Twins to platoon at 3B, 1B of DH, but I'm sure the Twins will have enough power to get that vaunted 3rd place.
I had heard somewhere that if Batista doesn't make the team out of spring training his contract is not guaranteed, is this true and is there any chance of it happening?
Please stop writing about Tony Batista. It makes me angry and depressed at the same time to think he is on the team. Can't we just all live in a state of happy denial until he starts making outs in April?
I noticed that Holmgren-Cowher thing too.
Whether Holmgren was upset at the officiating or whatever, that is just the most classless thing in the world if he didn't shake Cowher's hand.
Cowher wasn't the one making the calls on the field, so don't blame him for the officials mistakes.
I used to like Holmgren when he was in GB (big surprise from the Packer fan, I know), but now I hope his teams never have another winning season.
As for Batista, I just wish that people would quit calling him Bautista in their comments.
Personally, my defense of Batista was always an attempt to show that he did some things well while others focused on one thing he didn't. The other point was my concern with all the abusive comments aimed at him. I will never understand why people on these sites can't debate the pros and cons of a player without degrading that player, personally.
I don't recall Aaron or anybody else accusing Batista of being a child molester or a bad person in any way. He's just not a good baseball player. In his major league career, he has done exactly one thing well: Hit the occasional home run. I don't think anybody has denied that. So there's the "pro." The fact that he has so many "cons," because he does little if anything else well, is what the "Batista bashers" have been pointing out.
Ryan did have other options. None of us know how realistic they were, but they were out there, and all of them are better than Batista. With varying degrees of likelihood, any of the following could have been the Twins' frontrunner at 3B right now: Koskie, Mueller, Garciaparra, Hillenbrand, Marte, Lowell, Glaus. Yeah, some of those are long shots, but they were all either on the market or traded this winter. That means TR could have gotten them if he was willing to pay up. Or he could have gone with Cuddyer, who's already on the team. The fact that he settled for Batista, who is worse than any of those other options, is disappointing to fans who want the team to strive for more than mediocrity.
And, as for the merits of devoting so much discussion to a 7 or 8 hitter, 1) I guarantee you that Batista will hit cleanup or 5th at least 50 times this year, and 2) It's early February. What else are we supposed to talk about? Mauer's knee is better, people are satisfied with White and Castillo, there's little controversy on the pitching staff, and the lineup is pretty much set. It's either Batista or a debate over the merits of Gabe White, Darrel May and Dennys Reyes.
Did you know Rondell White is from the same town as Flannery O'Connor? This might be the most remarkable thing I've ever heard and it makes the signing even more impressive in my mind. I bet he had to read a lot of her books in high school. I know my high school tried to focus on local authors, but the DC suburbs weren't really that productive from a literary standpoint. Walter Johnson did live there for a long time, though. My highschool was named after him. Edgar Allan Poe managed to die in Baltimore, but I don't think he was really considered a Baltimore-an in any meaningful sense. He's not nearly as cool as Flannery O'Connor anyhow.
Maybe he can do a reading from "The Violent Bear it Away" as a promotional event or something.
I find it hilarious that I get labeled as a "Batista defender" on Gleeman's board and get scolded for being an irrational Batista hater on the Twinkie Town boards.
I don't really read the comments at Twinkie Town, so I can only go by what you say here. And in my opinion you go out of your way to address every negative mention of Batista.
I will never understand why people on these sites can't debate the pros and cons of a player without degrading that player, personally.
I'm not sure what this means, exactly. I don't think I've ever said one thing about Batista's off-field life. I couldn't care less about him personally, I care that he stinks on the field.
Maybe it turns out TBat does stink in four countries, but I really do find the amount of words and emotion spilled over a seven or eight hitter amusing.
So you've decided to add more words to it? Like I said above, you're free to talk about other topics. Like Pavlov's Dog, I mention Batista here and there is a stampede to defend him by about 6-8 regular posters.
I had heard somewhere that if Batista doesn't make the team out of spring training his contract is not guaranteed, is this true and is there any chance of it happening?
A lot of people seem to think the fact that Batista can be cut makes his signing a lot better (I can't tell you how many times I've heard variations of, "Yeah he stinks, but they can just cut him"), but the problem is that it then leaves the Twins with someone like Glenn Williams playing a major role and they've still missed out on guys like Koskie or Branyan.
The problem with these Batista discussions is that people on one side of the fence think that Batista is a sub par baseball player. Because of that, it doesn't really matter how much he makes, which one skill he does well, or where he figures to bat in the lineup. Regardless of all of that, he's still a bad player. That makes most of the points made by the other side of the fence fall on deaf ears. If you think Batista stinks, which I do, then the other stuff matters very little.
The fact that he settled for Batista, who is worse than any of those other options, is disappointing to fans who want the team to strive for more than mediocrity.
Right, this is a point I've tried to make in the past. The idea that Terry Ryan would look at the options this winter and decide to give Tony Batista a contract and a promise for first dibs on the third-base job is really disturbing to me, because I don't think any general manager should be making that decision. That it's also led to passing on other capable third basemen is even more disturbing, and that's without talking about what happens once Batista sets foot on the field and starts piling up outs.
Signing Batista is not only a bad move, it is a move that signals quite a bit more about the people in charge of the Twins. That's part of why I think it gets discussed more than than your run-of-the-mill bad move.
I agree that Batista is not a good player overall by any stretch of the imagination. However, he may be a decent signing for the Twins. Will Young posted a discussion of the relative worth of OBP versus SLG for different environment (high and low scoring offenses). For low scoring offenses, which we all can agree that the Twins fall into, SLG has much more relative value than OBP does. In this case, Batista's extra SLG may offset some of his horrid OBP.
I agree that Batista is not a good player overall by any stretch of the imagination. However, he may be a decent signing for the Twins. Will Young posted a discussion of the relative worth of OBP versus SLG for different environment (high and low scoring offenses). For low scoring offenses, which we all can agree that the Twins fall into, SLG has much more relative value than OBP does. In this case, Batista's extra SLG may offset some of his horrid OBP.
Yep. I've read similar studies and there was actually a presentation about this topic at the first SABR convention I attended. The problem is that the adjustments still don't make a guy with a .270 on-base percentage good or even acceptable. They are more talking about a guy who hits .325/.450 or so, not .270/.450.
For instance, in the presentation Will saw, "The value of an additional point of OBP was well over 2.0 while in a low scoring environment it was between 1.5 and 1.6."
Even if you count it as 1.5, then Batista comes in at .863 (.272*1.5 + .455) based on his 2004 season. The MLB-average third baseman from 2005 comes in at .940 (.337*1.5 + .435). That means Batista is 10% worse than league-average even using the numbers laid out in the study Will cited that is supposed to help low-OBP/high-SLG players.
Plus, that's a very optimistic projection for Batista considering a) his 2003 season was much worse, and b) he spent 2005 in Japan and is now two years older. If you use his 2003 numbers, Batista is at .798 or around 15% worse than average. That's horrible.
http://www.wyoung.net/twins/?p=94
I don't think Will linked to the study.
I don't think it is saying Batista is a great player or will help/hurt the team; I think it is saying Batista may be more valuable to the Twins or other low-scoring teams than he would have been for a higher-scoring team.
First and foremost, I am not excited about Batista. However, if Batista has his best season, his OBP will be .300. How many excess runs would he have to produce to be more valuable than a player with a better OBP.
For example, if he hits 30 HRs and has 90 RBI (his 162 game average) with a .300 OBP, wouldn't he be more valuable offensively than a player whose OBP was .330 to .350 but only hit 15 HRs with 50 RBI?
Basically, when do RBI and HRs become more valuable than OBP?
Basically, when do RBI and HRs become more valuable than OBP?
This is another reason why the Batista discussions don't really go anywhere. Batista's RBI total will be a side effect of not only his performance, but his spot in the lineup and the performance of his teammates. Because of that, you can't really say "if he has 90 RBIs, it'll make up for his .275 OBP."
The on-base percentage is part of the overall run-scoring machine, while the RBIs are just a result of it. Batista will drive in a fair number of runs because he swings at everything, has some power, and never passes up an RBI opportunity, but that will lead to a sub par number of runs created overall (which is a whole lot more important).
For instance, in 2003 Batista drove in an impressive-looking 99 runs, but dragged the Orioles' offense down because he made 512 outs while doing so. For more on why the RBI total is misleading when talking about a player's value, check out this entry on Batista from back then:
http://www.aarongleeman.com/
2003...267796389062801
Basically, when do RBI and HRs become more valuable than OBP?
When you're Tony Batista.
A.*
Gleeman's comment that "Signing Batista is not only a bad move, it is a move that signals quite a bit more about the people in charge of the Twins" is spot on. With an eye toward both this year and the next five years, Terry Ryan's commitment to TBat is distressing when Batista is measurably terrible at the plate and a noted liability at third.
So, to rise above merely griping about the horrible Batista signing, I've been trying to dream up trade scenarios in which the Twins can pick up someone who can actually play baseball and replace TBat...and Melvin Mora (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/scouting?
statsId=6239) came to mind. He's old, has 1 year remaining on his relatively cheap contract, the Os are going nowhere in that division, and they need pitching like crazy. We theoretically have pitching to give up, and ought to give it up for the right player(s) to try to take advantage of our closing window of competitiveness.
Here's the question: Which combination of pitchers could we give up to pry Mora out of Baltimore and put Batista back on the street?
Mora would be great. He's the antithesis of Batista. He's a very high OBP, OPS guy, plus he's vastly improved at the hot corner.
It'll never happen, but I would love to see the Twins make a run at Bill Hall.
Every time I watch the Brewers I think about how nice Bill Hall would be in a Twins uniform. Solid defense, a career 750 ops, 26 years old and making $350 K. Plus he doesn't have a starting spot in the line up.
And, as for the merits of devoting so much discussion to a 7 or 8 hitter, 1) I guarantee you that Batista will hit cleanup or 5th at least 50 times this year, and 2) It's early February. What else are we supposed to talk about? Mauer's knee is better, people are satisfied with White and Castillo, there's little controversy on the pitching staff, and the lineup is pretty much set. It's either Batista or a debate over the merits of Gabe White, Darrel May and Dennys Reyes.
Andre | 02/06/06 - 9:21 am | #
1) You're right about Batista's spot in the lineup, and 2) your post is quite possibly the only place on the planet I'll ever see the phrase "merits of" next to those three names.
Why do people insist on saying "he's OK for a player batting 7th or 8th"? First of all, he's substandard even for a player batting 9th...but my main point is that his results should be judged by POSITION on defense, not POSITION in the batting order.
If we got Neifi Perez and played him at 1b, could we say "he's not bad for a 9th hitter". That would be stupid. First basemen are supposed to bat 3rd, 4th or 5th, as more offense is expected out of that position, since the defensive responsibilities are less difficult.
At this point, I'd be elated to see TR and Gardy re-evaluate their decision to send Cuddyer to the OF. Cuddyer was basically a league average 3b, which is a helluva lot better than Batista. Sure, he sucked in the clutch last year, but he was awesome in the clutch in '04. I'm betting '05 was just an aberration for him in the clutch (or at least that the truth is somewhere in the middle, i.e. the same as his overall #'s)
Shipper's mention of Melvin Mora reminded of me of another guy on the O's roster and in light of the batista debate I thought I might point out one player who's season we can all ridicule together...
I speak, of course, of none other than the notorious 2K5 campaign of Corey Patterson:
.254 OBP/.348 SLG/.252 AVG/13 HRs
all this for the low, low price of 3 million...
I'm sure Santana for Bill Hall is doable. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you think Milwaukee will give up Hall. They still need (if Yost can figure it out fully) someone to platoon with Koskie and Weeks sticking at 2nd is a hope at this point.
From Gammons' column today:
Write ways to look at the game
The forum that the Internet has provided for statistics and statistical analysis is one of the biggest changes in the way we follow baseball in this century. Granted, there are what one friend calls "stat Nazis who believe there is no human element." Granted, statistics are ways to lead us all to predictable truths. But what "Bill James Baseball Abstract" and the Hirdt Brothers' "Elias Baseball Analyst" opened our eyes to nearly 20 years ago have become daily necessities.
There cannot be a better, more thoughtful Internet journal than "Baseball Prospectus," which has the invaluable and unique resource of Will Carroll's "Under the Knife," bookmarked by every front office and media member. "Hardball Times" is daily must-reading, as well as "Baseball Analysts" and the "Baseball Think Factory." Now there are countless blogs, none better than David Pinto's "Baseball Musings," which also provide several significant tools.
Look, it may kill the scout in the field to hear that one can learn a lot from statistical analysis annuals geared to Rotisserie heads, but it's certainly true, starting with the annuals published by "Baseball Prospectus" and "Hardball Times."
But take, for instance, Ron Shandler's "Baseball Forecaster." Shandler makes no bones about the fact that he gears his book to Rotisserie players. But as one pours through all the statistical data, there are fascinating statistical prognostication tools, from measures of a pitcher's dominance and command, to percentages of balls hit on the ground, in the air and on a line. Or measures of a hitter's ability to make contact.
Meanwhile, there are several other gems that remind some of us what we thought we already knew.
Kevin Youkilis' second-half OPS -- .973
Alfonso Soriano away from The Bandbox at Arlington -- .224, .374 slugging
Jhonny Peralta's second half OPS -- .917
Carlos Pena's first/second half OPS -- .682/.898
Wily Mo Pena's first/second half OPS -- .903/.719
Junior Griffey's second half -- 21 HR, 1.082 OPS
Rafael Furcal's first/second half OPS -- .402/.891
Jeff Francoeur's OPS by month -- 1.326, .878, .739, .222
Geoff Jenkins' second-half OPS -- 1.024
Miguel Tejada's OPS before and after Palmeiro's suspension -- .934/.704
Javier Valentin's first/second half OPS -- .715/.965
John Patterson, off years of arm injuries, threw 100-plus pitches in 16 of his last 18 starts.
To Joe Sheehan, Lee Sinins, David Pinto, Ron Shandler, Rob Neyer, all those tireless bloggers, thanks. You make my job far easier, and far more interesting. And changed the way we look at the game.
The reason people keep mentioning batting order is because some of us (not mr. gleeman though) do think that the batting order does matter because (unless you're the Yankees or Bo Sox) your team likely isn't comprised of high-priced players that can hit for average and power. A team of OBP specialists (Castillo) and SLG specialists (to a far lesser extent Batista) needs to order their lineup in the most efficient way. The 7, 8th spots in the Twins lineup don't necessarily need to have as great OBP as the 1,2,3 spots cuz the 8, 9 and 1 (to a lesser extent if its stewart) are going to be sub-average OBP and SLG guys anyway.
That being said, I think the argument of many of the Batista-pessimists is that his OBP transcends the allowable futility of the 7,8 spots. Discussing players by batting order still makes sense in my book though. And where the crap are we getting this "batista will hit 4th or 5th 50 times this year"?
Well, I would argue both. #1 I'd say his futility is borderline acceptable even for the #9 slot. And #2, if your 3b is batting 8th, that's itself indicates a problem, as 3b is one of the 3 or 4 positions where the most offense is expected.
I think batting order matters to some extent, and I'm not one who goes along with the theory that it doesn't matter, but I don't think it makes a huge difference either.
Sorry if I'm splitting hairs here but I think the impact of the batting order gets down played too much. I understand that the point made by you and others that you expect more out of a third baseman than Batista and that you think he can't possibly have a chance of contributing (though I don't agree with it) but the notion that the lineup doesn't make a 'huge difference' isn't defensible. Even you subconciously realize that for a team like the Twins, there is a huge difference in the role of #7,8 than #1-3. The only argument has to be that the difference simply isn't enough. Also I'd say that on AL teams (save the Yankees), a 3B is generally the 5th of 6th most productive behind the DH,1B,and atleast 2 of the OFs. Of course each team does with what it has though (the twins' best is a catcher).
I've always thought Terry Ryan was somewhat clueless on the major league part of the "Game Theory" analysis he is supposed to do. It's not so much the moves he makes (like Batista--horrible, but also like Silva and Nathan), but the moves he doesn't make. For instance, I'm pretty sure the Twins could have landed Youkilis last summer for Romero plus something we can all live without.
I've never gotten the feel that he deals at the right time. I screamed that he should trade Jones for anything after 2002 and after 2003 (and was just praying he'd dump him thereafter). And I screamed that he had better keep Ortiz when there was talk of non-tendering him. It wasn't that difficult to see that Ortiz had the ability to be a monster.
Now, I'm screaming that he needs to optimize the timing for the necessary trades of Lohse and Hunter. Lohse should be easy to time (the time when it's clear he's a luxury), Hunter is the difficult one. He will not be a Twin in 2007, and the only way to get anything for him is to deal him before the deadline. Then you weigh that with his value over the replacement and the probability in each scenario of making the playoffs. Although I'm sure Ryan looks at it this way, I don't get the idea he has a good feel for timing or negotiating (he'd rather not make a deal than take a chance on losing one).
I want to for once see that Terry Ryan has a "game theoretic" clue. I thank him for the farm system, I thank him for dealing with the Giants (where TINSTAAPP is taken to the extreme), I thank him for all the stability. I thank him for apparently going to Pohlad and saying we're done drafting the Mills, Garbe, Adam Johnson types--we need to pay for our top 15 or so picks.
Game theory is all about optimization, some of which comes across in Moneyball, and I'm not sure Ryan is even mediocre at that.
Batting order logic is even more appplicable since Batista is theoretically replacing a #7/ 8 hitter in Cuddyer, not some big hitter at the top of the lineup.
the notion that the lineup doesn't make a 'huge difference' isn't defensible.
I'd be careful saying stuff like that. In fact, numerous studies have been done that more or less show that lineup construction has a relatively small impact on run-scoring.
Here's a link to one prominent study:
http://www.retrosheet.org/Resear.../
lineup_art.htm
The conclusion was that "batting orders matter even less than people have believed."
And there are plenty more where that came from.
That being said, I think the argument of many of the Batista-pessimists is that his OBP transcends the allowable futility of the 7,8 spots.
Reading the above sentence brought back memories of a class I took freshman year where we discussed framing arguments using specific language that suited your point. Calling people who think Batista was a poor signing "Batista pessimists" is a solid example of that. As if seeing a guy with a .270 on-base percentage and thinking he'll be crappy is being pessimistic.
"And there are plenty more where that came from."
I don't doubt it but this is far from a contentious issue. Mark Pankin, one of you SABR guys that was referenced in the analysis you provided, found that lineup does matter though not quite in the same pattern traditional thought. His analysis is most of what I've drawn on though I'll admit that I'm no SABRmetrician and I can't trust Pankin or the other reports fuly cuz' I don't understand them fully.
http://www.pankin.com/markov/btn1191.htm
I can see the logic behind discussing players by batting order, to an extent. If you've got, say, a catcher who is a middle of the order guy, you can probably skimp on offense a little to gain extra defense at a position such as 3B, for example. So...given Mauer's presence, the Twins could justify accepting a little less offense at 3B to shore up the defense there.
According to David Gassko's "Range", Batista was the 6th-best fielding 3B in 2004, so this point of view could have some merit. However, I don't think Batista's defense makes up for all the outs (even when factoring in the fact that he'd only need to be a 7 or 8 hitter).
Well obviously if I think I'm right on the Batista agrument I can't call you the Batista-rationalists.. geez what do you want from me?
In any case, the relative importance of the batting order is obviously the departure point for you and I on the Batista issue and that's why I argue the importance of the lineup so specifically.
and to be fair i think i only started calling you the 'batista-pessimists' after you called me and the others 'batista-optimists'.
You know, if I just met a random guy on the street, and I knew nothing about his baseball evaluation skills, I might not believe anything he said, especially since I had no way of checking what he was saying as fact or fiction. But, if I read it on the internet, it's gotta be right, doesn't it?
Excuse me while I take random Dominican league fan's opinion with a grain of salt and wait to see for myself what Batista's defense is like in spring training.
and before I meant 'far from NOT being a contentious issue' - my bad
I don't doubt it but this is far from a contentious issue. Mark Pankin, one of you SABR guys that was referenced in the analysis you provided, found that lineup does matter though not quite in the same pattern traditional thought. His analysis is most of what I've drawn on though I'll admit that I'm no SABRmetrician and I can't trust Pankin or the other reports fuly cuz' I don't understand them fully.
I think if you read the study a little closer, you'll see that his idea of lineup construction being important is worth as much as 10 extra runs over the course of a season. In other words, not a huge impact when we're talking about teams typically scoring 700-900 runs.
You know, if I just met a random guy on the street, and I knew nothing about his baseball evaluation skills, I might not believe anything he said, especially since I had no way of checking what he was saying as fact or fiction. But, if I read it on the internet, it's gotta be right, doesn't it?
Excuse me while I take random Dominican league fan's opinion with a grain of salt and wait to see for myself what Batista's defense is like in spring training.
Heh. Thanks so much for adding this to the discussion.
Since I'm named as a Batista defender, I suppose I should chime in. My position has always been that if Batista gives us what he gave Montreal in 2004, I'm fine with the move. Most of the arguments have centered on whether he had a good year in 2004 or not. I claim that 30 homers and 110 RBI would have helped this team last year versus what we got at third base. Others disagreed. I stand fast to my opinion. And if Batista gives the Twins 25 HRs and 80 RBI this year, he's a bargain.
I have not addressed the issue of decline. Looking at the numbers, the key stat for him (ISO) had not declined prior to 2005. Japan throws a wild card into it. And the recent reports of him being out of shape, lazy, and generally uncompetitive would tend to support the claim that he's in precipitous decline. If so, I'm concerned that he will not make the team, and then what are Ryan's options?
I have said (not here but elsewhere) that if he declines to the point where he doesn't make the team, the Twins have options, most notaly Glenn Williams. Aaron has replied that this isn't really an option. OK, I guess I see our point Aaron: He's no Cory Koskie. But he's a decent stopgap until Ryan can make a move. And if Williams doesn't work, there's Wooten, L-Rod, Maza, and Tiffee.
I also think Ryan could make a deal for Blalock if the so desires. He wants to see if Batista is able before he does. But if Batista stinks in spring training, I would not be surprised by a Baker for Blalock move.
In the end, I'm hopeful, which is somehow a sign of weakness. But, if so, I guess I'm just weak. And I'm OK with that.
"I think if you read the study a little closer, you'll see that his idea of lineup construction being important is worth, as he says, "one extra win" over the course of a season."
Actually he says that by adjusting the manager's lineups to his ideal lineups and replaying the season AL teams could have on average won about one more game. This is a small improvement but that's because most teams already order lineups similar to his ideal.I would admit that it'd be more interesting to see him try out a completely messed up lineup to compare results.
Actually he says that by adjusting the manager's lineups to his ideal lineups and replaying the season AL teams could have on average won about one more game. This is a small improvement but that's because most teams already order lineups similar to his ideal.I would admit that it'd be more interesting to see him try out a completely messed up lineup to compare results.
Yes, generally in discussions like Pankin's 10 runs are thought to equal one win. It's six in one, half a dozen in the other.
In the end, I'm hopeful, which is somehow a sign of weakness. But, if so, I guess I'm just weak. And I'm OK with that.
First, I think this is silly. Playing the role of some sort of victim in a discussion of Tony friggin Batista.
Beyond that, this made me think of when a girl asks how you think they look in a certain outfit. If you are dumb enough to say something like, "I liked the other outfit better," you might get hit with a response along the lines of, "So you're saying I'm fat?"
Meanwhile, no one said the girl was fat, just like no one said you were weak. The fact that you continue to bring up your "weakness" every time the topic comes up is interesting, though.
Well, yeah, I suppose if a manager batted his players in the worst possible order (batting Pujols 9th, etc), it would make quite a bit of difference, but no one ever does that.
Regarding the E-mail from the Dominican, it worries me because it seems like the same old Tony, EXCEPT now with poor defense as well. IF that is true, Batista is toast. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Glenn Williams' minor league #'s don't really inspire me that he'd be much of an improvement over Batista. I'm hoping for Cuddyer to be back at the hot corner, which Gardy expressed as a possibility a week or two back.
By the way, I can see this conversation quickly going downhill, so I'll step aside to work on some stuff and let you guys hash things out until tomorrow.
Batting order logic is even more appplicable since Batista is theoretically replacing a #7/ 8 hitter in Cuddyer, not some big hitter at the top of the lineup.
Except that he's not replacing Cuddyer; Cuddyer's still going to be in the lineup, playing the outfield. In that scenario, you have two sub-par for position guys in the lineup.
The positional argument is essentially about scarcity. Where can you easily get guys to produce with the bat? It's much easier to get someone who can hit at third base than it is at shortstop or centerfield. I think that's evidenced by the fact that a lot of people who could out-hit Batista were available this winter. Carrying a third baseman who can't hit hurts a lot more than carrying a SS who can't hit, no matter where you put him in the lineup. And in the long run, it makes much more sense to think about it that way than it does to think in terms of which spot in the lineup a guy is going to occupy.
Think about it like this: If a guy's gonna bat 8th in the lineup, you want him carrying his weight with the glove. At third base, Batista doesn't have the opportunity, whether or not he has the chops. As Grand Poobah of the Out Coalition, he'd better be giving you stellar defense at an important position (somewhere up the middle), or he's just a nothing, a cipher, a sucking hole.
As for the possibility of acquiring Branyan to play third, the point is moot, not, in my opinion, cos he can't hit lefties or is sub-par with the glove. The real problem is the K's; the Twins have an established, irrational aversion to strikeouts. As such, they would just never acquire a guy like Branyan. He's outside the organizational philosophy.
Not to pick on anyone, but I really don't understand the argument that if you have an excellent offensive player at a sparse position (like Mauer at catcher), a team can skimp on offense at a typically "high offense" position such a 3B. Isn't the point to have the best possible lineup? And if you have an excellent offensive catcher or shortstop to go along with at least an average 3B, 1B, etc., doesn't that put you ahead of the game? Mauer is a great luxury, but why waste it on mediocrity at other postions? Granted, there is more to being a uselful player that just offense, but does anyone really believe that Batista is good enough with the glove to offset being arguably the worst third basemen in the league?
And if you have an excellent offensive catcher or shortstop to go along with at least an average 3B, 1B, etc., doesn't that put you ahead of the game?
That's pretty much the point, as far as I understand it. One of the major ways the Yankees were so successful back in the late 90s was that they had Posada, Jeter and Williams up the middle, meaning they only had to be average in the corners (Tino Martinez and Scott Brosius being just about exactly that most of the time) to outclass their opponents. Having a guy like Mauer can be used as an excuse to carry someone like Batista at third or Cuddyer in right, but it's not really a particularly good idea to go about it that way.
The fact that you continue to bring up your "weakness" every time the topic comes up is interesting, though.
First of all, you called me out has being somehow inferior to you because I have defended the Batista move whereas you have made Batista your new Rivas. If you want me to stand here and have you mock me without response, fine. But I thought the point was to get me to respond.
Second, I never said I was weak. I said, if being hopeful implies that I'm weak, call me weak. I don't buy the implication at all. You've mocked me for mere optimism before, as though it's some kind of sign of stupidity, or it means I'm really hopeless as a baseball analyst or whatever. Look, I'm just a fan who prefers to think in positive terms than to presume the worst all the time.
I'm not trying to convert you to a more optimistic outlook or anything. I'm not that hopeful.
aaron, an interesting thought I just had about all these Markov model projections that argue the differing value of lineup configuration.. by averaging out all the players by batting position, the effect that good players players have in certain lineup positions is really lost. Alot of team have to play atleast some flotsam (Nick Punto certainly helped bring down the average offensive stats for guys batting 2nd last year) and other teams have entirely horrible lineups (Angel Berroa led off for the Royals with a .305 OBP)
Well, hey, the Red Sox just designated Petagine for assignment. If only Terry Ryan was paying attention, we could have a guy much MUCH better than Ruben Sierra.
First of all, you called me out has being somehow inferior to you because I have defended the Batista move whereas you have made Batista your new Rivas. If you want me to stand here and have you mock me without response, fine. But I thought the point was to get me to respond.
Second, I never said I was weak. I said, if being hopeful implies that I'm weak, call me weak. I don't buy the implication at all. You've mocked me for mere optimism before, as though it's some kind of sign of stupidity, or it means I'm really hopeless as a baseball analyst or whatever. Look, I'm just a fan who prefers to think in positive terms than to presume the worst all the time.
I'm not trying to convert you to a more optimistic outlook or anything. I'm not that hopeful.
The entire point of my analogy, however forced, was to say that you keep inferring negative things from what I've written. I'm fairly certain I've never called you "weak" or "inferior," and I'm quite sure I've never called you "stupid." Yet you keep responding to those labels as though I am constantly using them.
Thus the comparison to a woman who thinks people are calling her fat when they haven't done any such thing.
As for me "presuming the worst all the time" and all that other stuff ... I could get all worked up and respond to it, but I won't. And on that note I'm really leaving the comments. Seriously.
Heh. Thanks so much for adding this to the discussion.
Well, I could've added just as much as Jorge added by saying that I think Batista's been purposefully taking it easy in the Dominican League because he's trying to stay healthy to earn his performance incentives on his major league contract. You have no way to validate Jorge's claims, and you have no way to validate my claim.
Of course, going into the discussion, you don't think Batista is any good, so I imagine you'll believe Jorge's claims over mine.
I don't know about everyone else here, but I'm resigned to the fact that third base is going to be a general void next season whether it's Tony Friggin Hole-in-my-Bat'ista, Glen Williams, or Nick Punto.
They say that they (Twins Management) banished Cuddyer from the hot corner for reasons of hitting. They might be right, he may end up hitting much better when manning an easier defensive position, but still, I would take his league average production at third base, the occasional error, and above average range at third base as well as a position for Kubel to play when he's deemed ready to start over Cuddyer's hitting in Right and subpar offense at third. From what I remember, this is an organization that doesn't like to eat crow, and putting Cuddyer back at third is an unlikelyhood unless they really have no choice.
I have the utmost respect for the depth of your baseball knowledge gleeman but you do get a bit petty in these arguments. You complain about frivolous things like me calling you a "batista-pessimist" while you moan about how the batista-defenders perpetually return to your blog as soon as you diss him in a manner like "Pavlov's dog". You accuse everyone of being to touchy or "trying to play the victim" when clearly the issue is the snotty, bratty remarks you make about opposing views that anyone would be offended by. I've only been reading your blog for about a month now but I've seen the situation arise too often for atleast some part of it not to be your fault.
i don't want to speak for gleeman, but i think you can find the some kind of petty arguments and namecalling at the dtfc forum or twinkietown. That's the nature of largely anonymous online discussions when opinion is heavily involved. i personally liek that gleeman responds to the comments because a lot of other bloggers i read dont. and i also like that he doesnt just let silly statements go by and is willing to express opinions on everything. i dont think people read this blog because their looking for uncritical views and minnesota nice. but whatever i could be wrong
Also, when you do check the blog again aaron, the difference in the amount of runs produced by the best and worst lineup proposed by the guy who's study you cited was .133 runs per game or about 20 runs over the year. Discounting the possiblity that averaging out all the batters by position in the lineup dillutes the effects of putting specific guys in specific spots in the order, 20 runs is still a significant difference for a team high on pitching, low on offense. Also, none of what we've been arguing directly addresses the fundamental argument of Batista vs. Cuddyer in the 8th/7th spot. The guy I cited (Pankin) still found that, for the #8 hitter SLG is more important than OBP, irrespective of any debates over the overall effect of shuffling the lineup.
It's his blog. I think he's allowed to have whatever attitude he wants. And although he can be a little snippy, I don't think he crosses the line. He's just defending his opinion, which I would do, too, if questioned.
Speaking of which:
And where the crap are we getting this "batista will hit 4th or 5th 50 times this year"?
I get this from four years of watching the Twins being managed by one Ron Gardenhire, the man who used to bat Jose Offerman cleanup. Anybody who shows the propensity to hit the occasional homer, especially if said person is a veteran, will get plenty of ABs in the heart of any batting order filled out by Gardy. That's my prediction. I hope I'm wrong.
I'm really sorry to keep loading this blog with non-sports stuff but I like Aaron's blog alot so I don't like seeing him/others hindering its potential. But this isn't about Minnesota-nice, its about having rational discourse on the blog. I would never suggest that Aaron not respond to comments, especially those that have no logical basis. However, I am gonna say that the more polite he is, the better the quality of the debate and the less personal crap I'd hafta read through. If you think a comment is dumb you could dismiss it best by either ignoring it or "Well I think your wrong and here's why" instead of "oh boy, here comes the foolish logic of group X again..". The difference is that the first response would begin/renew a debate (or mercifully kill it if you choose to ignore)whereas the second just incites useless finger-pointing since the members of group x now think they hafta defend themselves instead of just their arguments (whether they have merit or not). People are gonna come on the blog and be idiots so that ignore-option is gonna hafta be used occasionally..
Batista/Shmatista. Who's going to be #36 tomorrow? I'm thinking its going to be a pitcher. Mudcat? Worthington? Boswell?
Did offerman get 50 of his 172 ABs as a Twin in the cleanup spot? I don't really wanna look it up but that seems like alot. I will admit though that gardy's used some questionable logic in his lineups before but comparing how he used a bench player, offerman, to batista, a regular if he makes it, isn't really fair. Furthermore, its hard to see how even gardy could put batista in cleanup instead white, hunter, and morneau for any length of time. I could see it happening a few times if any injury rolls around or if guys really need a rest but 50 ABs for Batista seems tough to defend as he's only been mentioned by the organization as bottom-of-the-order power ever since he's been signed (at least in everything I've read).
"Did offerman get 50 of his 172 ABs as a Twin in the cleanup spot?"
No, but according to ESPN.com, he did get 34 PAs in nine games batting fourth in 2004 - only a little less than Hunter did that season. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find Batista's name in the cleanup spot, particularly on a night where Hunter's taking a day off, White's hurt, and Morneau's been struggling again.
As for the comments that started this whole traveshamockery, I'll point out that ravi was a frequent critic of mine on TwinsTerritory.com, particularly when I predicted that Rivas would make the All-Star team last year. Irony, ah, irony.
This may already be answered somewhere in this chat, but what kind of numbers did batista put up in the Dominican Republic?
Aaron,
You like to take the high road with statements such as, "I don't think I've ever said a thing about Batista's off-field life. I care that he stinks on the field." Yet, the title of today's article is "Batista Stinks in Four Countries." You could have said that his play stinks, however, you chose to state that he "stinks." That is a personal comment about him, not his ability to play the game.
Furthermore, the meaning of my prior comment that you seemed to not understand are comments made on these sites, including yours, such as today's comment by Steve, referring to him as "Tony Friggin Hole-in-my-Bat'ista." Comments such this are what I find offensive and degrading to him as a person.
Finally, when referring to me as one of several Batista supporters you made the comment......"like someone has just insulted your girlfriend. Your really ugly girlfriend." Had you not included the last sentence, one could accept that reference for what it is. However you couldn't and in my case, my girlfriend happens to be my wife of 30 some years. The name of this wonderful grandmother whom you chose to call "ugly" is Bonnie. The appropriate thing for you to do is apologize to her and hopefully, in the future give more thought to what you are writing before typing.
OK, I couldn't resist ...
You like to take the high road with statements such as, "I don't think I've ever said a thing about Batista's off-field life. I care that he stinks on the field." Yet, the title of today's article is "Batista Stinks in Four Countries." You could have said that his play stinks, however, you chose to state that he "stinks." That is a personal comment about him, not his ability to play the game.
Uh, no. When I say "Batista Stinks in Four Countries" I am referring solely to his play, not any smell coming from his body. I would assume that would be obvious, since the e-mail I quoted talked about his baseball skills and not one word about his personal hygiene, but apparently not. I can't be in charge of what you take offense to when you are interpreting meaning in things that aren't there.
Finally, when referring to me as one of several Batista supporters you made the comment......"like someone has just insulted your girlfriend. Your really ugly girlfriend." Had you not included the last sentence, one could accept that reference for what it is. However you couldn't and in my case, my girlfriend happens to be my wife of 30 some years. The name of this wonderful grandmother whom you chose to call "ugly" is Bonnie. The appropriate thing for you to do is apologize to her and hopefully, in the future give more thought to what you are writing before typing.
Oh please. Not only don't I know you enough to know whether you even have a girlfriend (or a wife, whatever), that comment had nothing to do with anyone's actual girlfriend. It was mixing analogies, saying that defending Batista is like defending an ugly girlfriend. I'm sorry you didn't get it, but the idea that I was insulting someone named Bonnie whom I've never met and up until about three minutes ago didn't know existed, is simply inaccurate.
It is days like today that I question why I ever opened up a comments section, but hopefully tomorrow will remind of why I did.
Well, I can't win. I tried to convince Roger that I wasn't talking about an actual girlfriend, but rather using it as an example in an analogy/metaphor, but that doesn't seem to work. He then asked if I thought he was lying about having a wife named Bonnie, which hopefully you all can see is completely missing the point.
Anyway, good night and be careful with your analogies. Someone may take them literally and think you're insulting a person you don't know exists. Funny how Fran, Nick N., and CMathewson didn't think I was talking about their actual girlfriends (if they even have actual girlfriends!?).
Oh well. To anyone reading these comments who finds themselves (or their loved ones whom I've never met) frequently insulted, I would suggest at some point that you stop reading the material you consistently find offensive. Either your sense of humor doesn't mesh with my sense of humor, or my way of communicating doesn't mesh with yours. Either way, there's probably no point in both of us banging our heads against the walls (which is not to be taken literally ... I don't want anyone to actually injure themselves).
Roger, I don't get why you seem so determined to take offense at almost anything negative anyone says about a player. This has happened with you and I over at Twinkie Town as well, where you have similarly accused me of being disrespectful to Tony Batista as a person because I said some negative things about his play. You seem like an intelligent and reasonable person, so I don't understand why you choose to take comments like "Batista stinks" or "Rivas sucks" to mean anything except as an criticism of their play on the baseball field. I can guarantee you that none of us have any problem with either of those players as people.
Tony Batista eats puppies.
Tony Batista does not eat puppies, he's a freakin' RBI machine.
I don't see why Batista can't be both a puppy-eater and be an RBI machine. I mean, he's neither, but still...
In the midst of all this arguing, did anyone happen to notice that John Sickels posted his Top 20 Twins prospects. Take a look at it.
http://www.minorleagueball.com/
I don't see why Batista can't be both a puppy-eater and be an RBI machine. I mean, he's neither, but still...
Oh, but I assure you. He eats puppies.
I can't look at a situation like this and not think of something C.S. Lewis wrote in 'The Screwtape Letters':
"To keep this game up you and Glubose must see to it that each of these two fools has a sort of double standard. Your patient must demand that all his own utterances are to be taken at their face value and judged simply on the actual words, while at the same time judging all his mother's utterances with the fullest and most oversensitive interpretation of the tone and the context and the suspected intention. She must be encouraged to do the same to him. Hence from every quarrel they can both go away convinced, or very nearly convinced, that they are quite innocent. You know the kind of thing: 'I simply ask her what time dinner will be and she flies into a temper.' Once this habit is well established you have the delightful situation of a human saying things with the express purpose of offending and yet having a grievance when offence is taken."
I mean, come on - if we actually tried to analyze this whole thing it'd be obvious in a second that very little of it makes any sense. Why, for example, would you ever feel the need to defend your girlfriend, even if someone else thought her ugly? Wouldn't it be obvious on its face that, since she is your girlfriend, you don't find her ugly, or she has charms that outweigh her apparent flaws? Or from the other side, how many people who seem convinced that Batista will hit 30 homers in 2006 had the same lead-pipe certainty that Justin Morneau would hit 30 or more in 2005?
I think Gleeman even misses the point with his observation about not reading the material you find offensive - if that were the case, then he (as well as most sports columnists and other opinion-mongers) would ultimately run out of readers, because a good portion of their humor is built from the bones of slaughtered sacred cows. (Hell, I've done it myself, and I know it's fun.) That's part of why I seldom read Bill Simmons anymore and have never been much interested in Rush Limbaugh - they tend to slaughter cows that I actually care about.
But I still read Gleeman. I still connect with a good amount of what he writes, even if I sometimes think the 'fantasy girl' stuff is overblown or his avowed distate for Luis Rivas is irrational. I'm sure he felt the same way about stuff I used to write on Contrarian Bias, assuming he read that much of it.
If something rubs you the wrong way, go ahead and put up your own place to say something about it - TwinkieTown makes it almost ridiculously easy - and get your opinion out there in the marketplace of ideas.
But save the bile for stuff that's worth getting angry about.
I want to go back to Andy's comment way back in the middle of this thread...
Andy, Flannery O'Connor is one of my favorite writers and I am glad you noted that she and RonDL share a hometown. That might just spark me to go out and reread "Everything That Rises Must Converge."
Also, pretty bizarre to see my name and site pop up several times in an 80 comment argument about the merits (and smell) of Tony Batista. But, hey, cool! It means people are reading my stuff (or reading the stuff I reference learning about but didn't actually do.)
But I still read Gleeman. I still connect with a good amount of what he writes, even if I sometimes think the 'fantasy girl' stuff is overblown or his avowed distate for Luis Rivas is irrational.
Me, too. I even try to post an "atta boy" or two for every 10 or 20 times I don't connect. I write for a living myself and learned long ago that you'll get feedback far more often from people who have some beef, disagreement or complaint about what you've written than anything positive. I get my share of both, but the ratio is lopsided toward the negative. Doesn't bother me much anymore, it just means people are reading.
If something rubs you the wrong way, go ahead and put up your own place to say something about it
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I see no need to put up my own place. I don't have the time for one thing and as long as there's a comment space (which I applaud) and an invitation for 'open chat' there's no need for it. This space suits the purpose.
Reading what Roger said, I just assumed he was having some fun at Gleeman's expense.
oh well. What can you do?
Reading what Roger said, I just assumed he was having some fun at Gleeman's expense.
No, he was very serious. I tried to explain to him that he'd taken what I wrote in the wrong way, but he was too upset to even really hear me out.
You can call my girlfriend ugly all you want. My wife doesn't like her, anyway....
Guys, I should tell you something. He was signed by the Twins BEFORE he started to play here at the DR.
That means, no scout watched him play before signing him.
I watched him play, and I listened in the sports programs in radio how the fans called angry with his poor game, his poor defense and his lazyness.
I from the Dominican Republic too, and an Aguilas Fan (The same team of Tony, fos disgrace, that is for sure).
Batista could become the worst sign by the Twins in Years, he can't play defense, he can't bat in the clutch, and he is a ''out machine''.
For everybody, the plan is attack with bunts for the third base, incredible.A Major League Pitcher, who play with the Aguilas too, said he is very dissapointed Seeing a player playing in This form in the final, and he ''Broken'' his arm for the team.
The Twins signed Tony before enter to the Team...
Don't Be Surprise if Tony finish the season in the Bench.
I remember that everyone here was happy with his last season with Baltimore, when he batted in 99 runs. Then Baltimore said they were not signing him again because he was a bad presence (influence) in the clubhouse.
He then played for the Expos, and they preferred to sign Castilla over him. He then played in Japan, signed a 15-Million dollar contract (5M signing bonus, 5 MM each year). After just one season, they decided to pay him the 5 MM for the second year and let him go. Were they happy with him?? I don't think so...
Hey guys:
I am from The Dominican Republic as well as Jorge. We both follow the same team: Aguilas del Cibao (Cibao's Eagles) and we have many leaders in the club house being Miguel Tejada the best player right now. Batista killed the chemistry of the team being lazy, not attacking the balls coming to him at third, throwing softly to first base from third!! At one point at the end of the season after he let a ball that wasn't hit sharply go to the right field and it was just one meter to his left the fans at the stadium started booing him he made an Hulk Hogan style I can't hear you and them the boos were louder. What happened next was a shame to baseball and the field: he went and grabbed his balls and cursed to the fans.
Now for you who don't follow winter leagues, specially the dominican one, you are missing some great baseball played old fashion way, being proud of the team you are representing regardless of the money. Here they barely make 6,000 a month playing. Nontheless you can find stars like: Miguel Tejada, David Ortiz, Juan Uribe, among others. They play more intensely here than they do most of the time in MLB. So do I think Batista was taking it easy at third base? Probably not taking into consideration everything that was involved in the championship. When Batista came to the team they allowed him to play at third base sitting down Edwin Encarnaciσn who is a top prospect for the Reds and who played most of last year in the Majors.
My 2 Cents.
Juan
Here's another "disgruntled" Aguilas fans, also from the DR, and one who admired Batista in his early years, when he would play SS for our team, yes you read me right, SS, before Felix Fermin would enter from his well deserver rest, after playing in the majors.
Back then, Tejada was our Second Baseman, and Tony our Third Baseman.
Can you imagine Tony, with a gut way bigger than now, covering the SS. Well, back then he still played baseball the way it was meant to be played....with the heart.
And yes, you can say that we ask a lot of our players, specially when they play practically for free...but here's the flipside to that coin. If I have a certain someone on my team, that goes by the name of MIGUEL TEJADA, and he dives for balls, steals bases, motivates the team, bats for Avg., hits homers, brings in RBI's and produces few outs, then no, I'm not asking for too much.
I only ask that you give your best, because arguably, the best SS in the majors right now, leaves it ALL on the field, no hold bars, simply for the reward of listening to your fans, that love the jersey as much as the players them selves, NO I'm not asking for much.
We applauded Tony when he was a good player which indeed he was), we encouraged him when he fell on a slump (usually, more often than I'm comfortable to admit), but let's face it, that was not going to bring us a championship, results on the other hand would, but it is obvious that we never got those...
It was shamefull to watch the transformetion of a former top prospect, into a lazy has-been, a has-been taht "never was" in the majors.
In all honesty, I do hope that he has a good season, being a Dominican born player, and we all cheer for them when the season starts, but he has had many wake-up calls, but still fails to deliver.
I don't see why he should start no, after all, how many players make 15M a season? He now has money...
In an interview he gave a local reporter, when being asked what he thought of what the fans where saying about him in all the radio shows, his answer was a vague ona: "I'm the same tony Batista of allways, that's my game, that's the way I play and the have to understand that..."
Whoa! Thats a relief! That's just the way he is! No need for improvement!
Sorry Tony, but unless your name is A-Rod or Tejada, you have a long way to go before gaining the respect you once had as a ballplayer.
You defiled our team's uniform, and I truly hope not to see you in it next winter.
Commenting by HaloScan
