07-11-2012, 11:58 PM #41
People, in general, are headline/title readers and likely don't read the full articles before spouting off.
07-12-2012, 01:14 AM #42
The 2004 team, which rolled to a three-peat Central championship by playing .600 ball in the 2nd half, had already posted a 47-40 record and trailed Chicago by just a half-game at the break.
The 2006 team that came back from a 12-game deficit in mid-July actually started winning in the second week of June, and had climbed to a 47-39 record at the break. From June 8 to that point, the Twins were 22-6. Catching Chicago and/or Detroit still seemed unlikely, but we had reason to believe that the team could play very good ball the rest of the way--and maybe one of those teams would stumble, and the wild card might be in play.
The 2008 team, which won 88 games but lost the Game 163 playoff with Chicago, was 53-42 at the break, on a 21-8 tear, and trailed the White Sox by just 1 game.
The 2009 team, which won 86 games plus the Game 163 playoff with Detroit, was 45-44 at the break, in 3rd place, just 4 games behind the Tigers.
The 2010 team, which crushed in the second half to finish with 94 wins, was 46-42 at the break. They had been scuffling in the few weeks leading up to that point, but showed their potential with a 40-29 mark on June 20; and, despite recent struggles, they were still in 3rd place, 3.5 games behind Chicago after the first half.
I see that you've acknowledged a couple times that we're just talking about a pipe dream, but let's also be clear that this Twins team, which stands at 36-49 after playing slightly better than .500 ball since mid-May, doesn't really compare well to any of Minnesota's past playoff teams. Coming back from some midseason deficit has been a common feature to most of those good seasons in the Gardy era (excepting only 2002), which is why Twins fans have come to believe that we always have a shot. "This is what we do." But none of those playoff teams had so many problems at this point. None of them had got off to such a horrible start for 6 weeks, only to "turn it around" with a run of merely .510-ish ball for the next 6 weeks. None of them were worse than 3rd at the break, much less sitting in last place. None of them came back from anything like a 36-49 record. I mean, it's fun to indulge a bit in pipe dreams, what might happen if every break starts to go our way, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking, "the Twins have come back from this sort of situation before." No, they have not.
Last edited by frightwig; 07-12-2012 at 01:36 AM.
07-12-2012, 10:30 AM #43
07-12-2012, 11:46 AM #44
In reality, all it will take is good, consistent pitching and timely hitting which we haven't had all year. We do play enough division games for it to at least be a possibility.
07-12-2012, 04:41 PM #45
I was listening to Common Man today and they had flirted with giving this article a Preposterous Statement Nomination. That would have been great for publicity for the site!
No chance it happens but still fun to think about. What the last months or so of .500 ball has shown is that pieces are in place to be good again next year. Too much broken with the rotation to fix it in season, but with $30 mil to play with and piece that can get a starter in Span, perhaps moves can be made.
07-12-2012, 04:44 PM #46