Comments on: 18 days, 19 games, and 1 thin line http://aarongleeman.com/2011/07/14/18-days-19-games-and-1-thin-line/ Baseball news, insight and analysis from Aaron Gleeman Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.1 By: Dirleton http://aarongleeman.com/2011/07/14/18-days-19-games-and-1-thin-line/comment-page-1/#comment-6990 Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:57:12 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=50427#comment-6990 “On the same program” = for one admission. Other definitions specify “Before the same crowd” which is the same thing as one admission. Anything else is just marketing BS.

]]>
By: Large Canine http://aarongleeman.com/2011/07/14/18-days-19-games-and-1-thin-line/comment-page-1/#comment-6987 Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:45:10 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=50427#comment-6987 Now you get one game for the price of five

]]>
By: Son of Shane Mack http://aarongleeman.com/2011/07/14/18-days-19-games-and-1-thin-line/comment-page-1/#comment-6979 Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:16:04 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=50427#comment-6979 I always thought a doubleheader meant you got two games for the price of one. If the Twins charge separate admission for the two games, is it still a doubleheader?

Sure it is.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doubleheader

True, in the “old days” – there wasn’t time between the doubleheaders – especially in the pre-lights days and they had to get in both before darkness. Also, you would get a two-fer as far two games for one admission. But, that’s not the actual definition of the doubleheader.

It’s been decades since you got two games for the price of one in the majors.

]]>
By: Pedro Munoz http://aarongleeman.com/2011/07/14/18-days-19-games-and-1-thin-line/comment-page-1/#comment-6978 Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:10:41 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=50427#comment-6978 I always thought a doubleheader meant you got two games for the price of one. If the Twins charge separate admission for the two games, is it still a doubleheader?

]]>
By: Son of Shane Mack http://aarongleeman.com/2011/07/14/18-days-19-games-and-1-thin-line/comment-page-1/#comment-6977 Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:26:13 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=50427#comment-6977 The Twins play two seperate games on 7/18 – a doubleheader is something else.

A Doubleheader is two games on the same day. July 18th meets that definition.

The “classic” doubleheader is a late afternoon and evening game with only 20-30 minutes between. They’re not as common nowadays in the majors.

However, a Day-Night doubleheader as this is likely to be, is still a doubleheader.

]]>
By: frightwig http://aarongleeman.com/2011/07/14/18-days-19-games-and-1-thin-line/comment-page-1/#comment-6976 Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:06:46 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=50427#comment-6976 @minnesconsin

If Span gives the Twins an advantage of 1-1.5 WAR over Sizemore or Jackson (and that’s assuming Span is healthy and plays as he did before, while Sizemore continues to be bothered by injuries and Jackson does not progress), but Peralta and A. Cabrera each give their teams an advantage of ~3 WAR over Nishioka (a fair assumption, based on what we’ve seen), I think that matters.

Not all of my preferences are equal. If Casilla is a little better than the other crummy 2B currently starting for the Tigers or Indians, that probably doesn’t make up for the difference between Cabrera and Cuddyer (or, gulp, Luke Hughes), or Martinez/Hafner and a suddenly old Thome, or Boesch and Young. Under ideal circumstances, I might take Twins players at 5 positions, but that doesn’t necessarily = WIN TWINS.

]]>
By: BR http://aarongleeman.com/2011/07/14/18-days-19-games-and-1-thin-line/comment-page-1/#comment-6975 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:12:20 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=50427#comment-6975 And given the team’s injuries, I think most people would gladly take 54-54 w/54 to go…

]]>
By: AG http://aarongleeman.com/2011/07/14/18-days-19-games-and-1-thin-line/comment-page-1/#comment-6974 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:43:16 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=50427#comment-6974 Interestingly the Twins’ low point was at the end of the first 54 games; first third of the season; (17-37). If they continue at the pace they’ve been winning since June 1 (24-11 .6857) they will win 13 of the next 19, achieving (barring rainouts) a record of 37-17 over the second third of the season (exactly) leaving them at 54-54 with 54 games to play.
Pretty exciting way to play .500 baseball…..

]]>
By: BR http://aarongleeman.com/2011/07/14/18-days-19-games-and-1-thin-line/comment-page-1/#comment-6973 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:51:24 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=50427#comment-6973 Mike:
The Twins have to offer arb to a player to be eligible for compensation if the player rejects and signs elsewhere. So the question of whether they can get 2 quality prospects for Capps is only really relevant if they think that’s the least they can get for him. (In other words, they’d be intending to offer him arb and expecting him to reject it.) I agree with you – I don’t think the Twins will offer him arb, b/c he might accept it, and his salary would liklely be big ($9M range).

So… If they decide to deal Capps, beause they’re out of it, they won’t be thinking that they need two good prospects back. They’d be happy to get the salary relief for this year and one decent (less than Wilson Ramos, unfortunately!) prospect in return.

]]>
By: mike wants wins http://aarongleeman.com/2011/07/14/18-days-19-games-and-1-thin-line/comment-page-1/#comment-6972 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:12:48 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=50427#comment-6972 No way the Twinsoffer Capps arbitration, is there? If he accepts, they are stuck with him at huge dollars, and no picks in return….I just don’t see that being an influence on their decision (I hope).

Cuddy is not going anywhere, they’ll be re-signing him, imo.

I’d rather they package a mediocre prospect with Nathan or Kuble, to get a better prospect in return, than to just trade them straight up.

that said, I expect them to win 8 games in this next stretch, and to consider themselves squarely in the “not do anything much” zone, because they won’t feel totally in it, or totally out of it.

]]>