Again, you're relying on ERA estimators and K-BB%. All teams with good bullpens will probably have pretty good K-BB% ratios and FIPs. I'd argue the teams with the best K% and best hit prevention among those teams would probably be the best pens, even if another team with fewer walks and Ks edges them in K-BB% or FIP.
And I think pens do have some control over hits -- look at batting average against, and you'll generally see better pens at the top, and worse at the bottom. The Twins pen was in the middle-bottom half for 2019 by this measure -- I think their strategy of throwing strikes results in more hits, fewer walks, higher BABIP, better ERA estimators, but maybe not the very best pen in real world terms. (Although they've gotten good enough at missing bats recently that it's definitely closed the gap significantly.) It's going to be subjective, of course. If you prefer the ERA estimators and K-BB%, that's subjective too -- and there's nothing wrong with it, we simply disagree. I'm just laying out my position.
To repeat, I still think it's a very good pen, but in the context of a postseason series, I'm not sure it's going to be a relative *advantage* over the recent pens of the Yankees and Astros, at least not enough to offset not having an ace starter, which is I believe how this tangent got started.
If all teams with good bullpens have good k/bb ratios and ERA estimators, doesn't it follow that those are therefore good indicators that a bullpen is good?After all, would we ever look at a bullpen with bad k/bb ratios or ERA estimators, and deem it a good bullpen?And if they are good indicators of a bullpen's quality, wouldn't it be reasonable to declare that a team which performs better in these metrics than another team who also performs well, but not as well, has a superior bullpen?I agree they don't tell the whole picture, but that being said, when one team is invariably first, at a certain point that starts to matter.
Furthermore, I disagree that batting average against is a particularly useful standalone metric, as it cannot rule out the effects of defense, which the Twins were strongly below average at, particularly at 2nd, 3rd, and short; in the second half you can add center field to that list too.This story is told by the fact that the Twins had the 6th worst BAA in the second half, but the worst BAABIP.While you're correct that the Twins threw more strikes in the second half (44.1% zone percentage) than any other team, they actually had the 7th lowest zone contact percentage, because they had the 5th highest swinging strike rate--Twins relievers stayed in the zone because they could avoid contact and get swinging strikes.By-the-by, that swinging strike rate of 13.1% was better than either the Astros OR the Yankees.
In short, as best as I can tell, the only statistical metric you actually want to use to gauge bullpens' relative value is batting average against, which, given the fielding dependent nature of that metric, seems at best flawed.Outside of that, your dismissal of the Twins bullpen as potentially being an advantage over Houston or New York seems to come from bias and assumption.