Friday, November 28, 2014

Site Navigation

  • News and features
  • Events
  • Membership
  • About Us
Radio

< A new bonus point idea | Main | The tip sheet >


New ballpark

Posted at 3:33 PM on April 11, 2007 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)

The Twins and whoever owns that property in downtown Minneapolis have ironed out their differences (eminent domain can make you do that, I guess), and today Rep. Jim Abeler has filed a bill for "an alternative location." HF2418, filed today, has the boundaries that look a lot like the present location but I'm not well schooled in the streets of the downtown district.

Speaking of which, I'm one of the few people who never minded watching baseball in the Metrodome. Tonight, I'm going to watch the Yanks-Twins play, even though there's a snowstorm going on. Cool. Son #1 is a Yankees fan. And, no, I really don't know exactly how that happened.

Anyway, I'll be updating the pages a bit earlier this afternoon in order to beat a hasty exit.


Comments (5)


Being the #1 team you get used to the idea that people are gonna either love you or hate you. Just ask the Carriers!

Woo-hoo, Jim Abeler files a stadium bill, can you just smell all the points?

I never like watching a game in a domed stadium. One, I always wanna tell the guys to take their balls and bats outside before they break a window or something. Two, the Hump is like watching a game in somebody's garage, what with all those folding chairs piled up against the wall, the plastic baggies, etc.

I'll look forward to catching a few games the way the Demiurges of Baseball meant them to be played, outdoors on real grass. Just not in April or October in Minnesota.

Go Carriers!

Doug Gray

Posted by Doug Gray | April 12, 2007 12:00 PM


I hate to say it, but I never minded the Metrodome. In fact, I rather like the joint.

My son and I went to the Yankees -Twins game last night and had a great time.

Outside? Snow, rain and I'm much too old to think that sitting in snow and rain to watch a baseball game somehow makes me a more pure fan.

When the game was designed, baseball didn't have this stupid unbalanced schedule where a team comes in once a year.

And, just for the record, baseball didn't consider #3 hitters who bunt to be some kind of genius, either.

Of course, they also didn't have knuckleheads like Reusse, who -- in today's column -- called a guy in the pressbox who said "what is he THINKING?" a jerk, while then proceding to write about 30 paragraphs that basically asked the same question.

The bunt that moved his guys along, by the way, was Mauer's SECOND bunt attempt of the night. His first ended up in pitcher's glove... his attempt to do something for his team a failure.

I HATE National League style baseball. I HATE giving up outs. I'm a Bill James kind of guy.

Sadly, the manager of my favorite team -- the Cleveland Indians -- also loves bunting, which is why they lost 93 games last year.

Posted by Bob Collins | April 12, 2007 1:15 PM


Well we may just have to disagree about the Dome and Patrick, I'll read him even when he writes about high school hockey. But then I can't seem to find the screed you're so upset about either. My main point would be that without Reusse or someone like him we might be left to the tender mercies of a certain homer and his close personal friends, compared to which even watching the Pale Hose on WGN-TV would be an improvement.

We do agree that Baseball is no fun in cold weather. In my DC life, pre-Nats, they used to turn RFK Stadium into a Baseball venue for a couple preseason games, of which I recall a particularly gray and frigid April day, too cold for even a beer. Ugh.

You'd probably be a fan of an idea an old pal of mine who used to flack for the minor leagues had, defensive specialization. Unfortunately imho that would take away from the glorious fact that Baseball is basically seventeen minutes of action packed into three hours.

But if one could apply the concept of defensive specialization to a legislature, or a fantasy legislature team . . . hm . . .

Go Carriers!

Posted by Doug Gray | April 12, 2007 2:46 PM


My apologies. It wasn't Reusse. It was Jim Souhan. It's on C5.

It's an outrageously insipid column. The idea of praising Joe Mauer for bunting with 0 out and a runner on second is just abominable to any baseball purist, I think. And it probably conforms to your definition of the homer.

Oddly, the headline is "this catcher is no ordinary Joe."

Souhan seems to think it was a stroke of genius, because moving the runner to third set up the game-tying run.

And that's great. Except that the idea of sacrificing yourself in that situation is pure idiocy, and Souhan's suggestion that the move took the pressure off the 4-5 hitters in the lineup is even more absurd.

Why? Well, first of all the run hasn't scored, it's only moved from one scoring position to another. So the pressure of getting him home isn't really relieved. Second, if the Twins are team that needs to take pressure off the cleanup hitter and the #5 hitter, well, you're kidding me, right?

I'm all for moving the runner along, but here's a guy hitting .345 who clearly made a decision before coming to bat that he couldn't get a hit in that position. I realize he thinks he was in a slump, but THAT attitude is a darned good way of staying in one.

There's more than one way to move a runner from second to third in that situation and bat control is one of them.

Go here, and select the "ground outs". See something interesting? Almost ALL of them are to the right side, which is where you want to put a ball in that situation to move your runner along.

With the idea that you're going to pull the ball, you also increase your chances of a hit, whereas with a bunt to A-Rod, while that might keep anyone from covering third, almost guarantees you won't get a hit.

So NOT bunting in that situation increases your chance of a big inning, gets your runner to third at minimum, and home if it sneaks through, AND there's no outs.

It's interesting that Souhan used the word "jerk" to explain why even suggesting such a thing is anti-Minnesota Twin. It sounds like the guy you're talking about, Doug.

Look, I like Joe Mauer fine. But this morning's canonization of the guy is just so much hot air by our local media.

The Twins don't get a lot of big innings and often struggle offensively. This kind of thinking is one reason why.

Posted by Bob Collins | April 12, 2007 3:03 PM


Well, we can take some solace in the fact that he seems to have decided to lay one down on his own. At least that's his story and he and Gardy are sticking to it. Maybe he misread a sign or someone goofed up in some other way and his colleagues are closing ranks, as those in other professions have been known to do.

But while it's hard to argue with results, it'd take some arguing to convince me that bunting with none out, a man on the keystone sack and a .345 hitter at the plate would be the right thing to do. Had I not been dealing with the requirements of various national and state revenue agencies at the time I might have had the same reaction as the what was he thinking guy. It's wise to recall that the Demiurges of Baseball will not be mocked, they have ways of punishing such things.

And if any the Carriers decide not to swing away as we near the home stretch, there might be a trade or waiver pickup yet.

Go Carriers!

Posted by Doug Gray | April 13, 2007 1:51 PM