Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store

Recent Blogs


Photo

2015=Bright

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#31 Twins Twerp

Twins Twerp

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 795 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:02 AM

A rate of humor success equal to that of your avatar pic at baseball.


Ok, you crossed the line of affendment when you call out Nick Punto. Nick is waiting for an apology as he slides into first.

#32 Alex

Alex

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 978 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:57 AM

Winning Teams are about chemistry and not always Saber stats:
1991 World Series Champs
Harper - Puckett - Mack - are only .300+ hitters
Not 1 player had 100 RBIs
Only 2 players had 20+ HRs
What they had was great OBP% and Tons of Doubles
Pitching Staff Comparisons
Pitcher - SO/9 - H/9
Morris - 5.9 - 8.2
Tapani - 5.0 - 8.3
Erickson - 4.8 - 8.3 WORLD SERIES TEAM
Anderson - 3.4 - 9.9
West - 6.6 - 8.3

Pitcher - SO/9 - H/9

Diamond - 4.7 - 9.6
Worley - 7.2 - 10.4
Pelfrey - 5.9 - 11.0 LAST YEARS PITCHING STATS
Harden - 9.9 - 9.5
Correa - 4.7 - 9.3

NOT KNOWING NAMES WHO WOULD YOU HAVE WANTED?

Chemistry amongst young players can go a long way.


Context/era (baseball era) is important. The comparison between these two teams is, frankly, laughable, and I am sorry to put it that way.

1991 Twins staff ranked (AL): #10 in K/9, #2 in BB/9, #5 in HR/9, and #3rd in BABIP. That's a darn good staff with all that combined. Even with low strike totals, the other peripheral numbers were excellent. We'd be lucky (not to mention stunned) if the staff of next year manages those kinds of combined rankings. Including Harden is a bit of a leap. Chances of him starting at all, much less a full season is a massive leap.

The 1991 Twins hitters were tops in OBP, 2nd in SLG, 1st in wOBA, #1 in AVG. They were 4th in runs, but were arguably the best hitting team of the season.

Chemistry, sure, they were absolutely likeable guys, but they were an awesome team statistically as well. These two teams don't compare. They weren't gutting out wins on chemistry.

Edited by Alex, 30 January 2013 - 10:01 AM.


#33 lightfoot789

lightfoot789

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 615 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 10:16 AM

Context/era (baseball era) is important. The comparison between these two teams is, frankly, laughable, and I am sorry to put it that way.

1991 Twins staff ranked (AL): #10 in K/9, #2 in BB/9, #5 in HR/9, and #3rd in BABIP. That's a darn good staff with all that combined. Even with low strike totals, the other peripheral numbers were excellent. We'd be lucky (not to mention stunned) if the staff of next year manages those kinds of combined rankings. Including Harden is a bit of a leap. Chances of him starting at all, much less a full season is a massive leap.

The 1991 Twins hitters were tops in OBP, 2nd in SLG, 1st in wOBA, #1 in AVG. They were 4th in runs, but were arguably the best hitting team of the season.

Chemistry, sure, they were absolutely likeable guys, but they were an awesome team statistically as well. These two teams don't compare. They weren't gutting out wins on chemistry.


I left off the offensive stats on purpose :) -- You are absolutely right - They were an awesome team offensively. I just want to give this staff a chance to fail. There are some respectable pitchers on this staff if they can remain healthy. I'm in the minority when I say I am anxious in a positive way. I have a feeling that the Twins will be a much better team than 2012 and that these pitchers will surprise. The problem I see when they do surprise is - "Where would we have been had we brought in 2 better pitchers this off season" - Will TR be applauded or disgusted regardless?

#34 Alex

Alex

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 978 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 10:36 AM

I left off the offensive stats on purpose :) -- You are absolutely right - They were an awesome team offensively.


You didn't, though.

Also, your opener was that winning teams are sometimes about chemistry and saberstats, though. The 1991 crushed the stats, and especially excelled in "saberstats."

As to your last point, if the team is competitive (near .500) I think most of us will be happy to say we were wrong about the staff itself, but yes, we'll probably point out that we were right in that we should have gone after better pitchers, middle infield, or whatever with the available cash, especially if a guy like Marcum is healthy and has a great year.

If we're competitive but Correia is the weak link, Ryan will definitely have painted himself into a corner.

I guess my return question is what if the staff, besides Worley is worse than expected (like if Diamond regresses)? What if the lineup is worse (as unlikely as I think that is)? What then? Will those of you who championed/put faith in Ryan's moves say he made some mistakes or will you, like Phil Mackey, fall back on "The Twins were never going to win a division title anyway" as an excuse for a pathetic offseason (edit: as far as improving the major league club is concerned)?

Edited by Alex, 30 January 2013 - 10:42 AM.