You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?48...agged-Rotation
Printable View
You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?48...agged-Rotation
Just wanted to say that I thought/think your argument for the absurdity of the validity of hypotheticals was spot on, and so was at least the idea of the playoffs being at least somewhat of a craps shoot. First, the idea of the Twins being run the same way in the AL East is fairly shortsighted. I normally am inclined to agree with Gleeman's insight, but I think the idea that they would be the same kind of team they are in the East as they are the Central is lunacy. Personally, I think, were they in that sort of division, they would be run more like the Rays, with a bit larger payroll. But for Gleeman to assert that Division championships don't mean all that much because it doesn't translate to playoff success (even if you're in the worst division in baseball) seems undeniably incorrect. Including the first year the Twins won the World Series, there have been 15 teams (I believe) with a 95-win or less season (13 of them being 92 or less) on the books that have won the World Series. Therefor, I think it's absolutely valid to say that there are 2 steps to winning the World Series...the first, and most important being making the playoffs. So I think you were absolutely right in what you were hinting at.....that 6 Division titles in 10 years is no laughing matter. Regardless of the outcome or what division we're coming from. Playoff history is literally filled with history of teams that had very unfavorable matchups that still managed. Now perhaps that says something about the Twins' coaching staff, or even just small sample size, but for the first time in quite awhile I find myself disagreeing vehemently with your cohort. Perhaps their playoff performance is a sad thing, but the fact that they got into the playoffs 6 times in 10 years should be looked upon as a very serious accomplishment that very much furthered their chances of another World Series title. Thank you for making that point.
I actually very much appreciated their discussion on this, but I think the poster above, John, and Gleeman were arguing about different things and that their points weren't mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMix
John's point that the Twins basically played to win the division and that should be recognized as impressive is something I agree with. Win your division and hoping to pull off an upset in the playoffs 6 of tens years is admirable.
On the other hand, I think Gleeman's point about the Twins division titles being a bit of smoke an mirrors is just as valid, a fact proven by their lack of competitiveness in the playoffs (7 wins in 6 appearances?) as well as their record against teams outside of their division. Whether or not you think they would have done something differently if they were in another division over the course of several years, it's clear that their division titles may have led us to believe they were a better team then they actually were/are in comparison to the rest of the league.
I think Gleeman was being unduly critical of the Twins. Pretty much every division has 1 or 2 above-average to good teams and the rest suck. I mean obviously if we put the Twins in the AL East they would've been less successful, but I think thats true of just about any other division winner considering the AL East is much better than any other division. Plus the point of the Twins winning 85-88 games was misleading, since every title besides 2009 they won at least 90, and 2009 was clearly the weakest team. Either way besides the AL East no other division requires you to consistently win 95+ games to win the division. The NL Central has been just as weak if not weaker than the AL Central. NL West same deal. In 2006 the Cardinals won the division with 83 wins, and ended up winning the World Series. Last year they snuck into the Wild Card with 90 wins and won the World Series. But I doubt anyone is out there talking about how their weak division enabled them to get into the playoffs. Besides the AL East, if you are in the 88-94 win range, most of the time you're in contention to win your division.
I dont think either John or Aaron was wrong... but frankly, 1/2 hour on the topic was strange... The goal of every team going into the season is the win a World Series, but the first way to do that is to win the division. The Twins are in the AL Central. They shouldn't have to apologize for that. Just the way it is. So, I don't care if they are the Blue Jays.
While I'm not going to say that they weren't a worse team when compared to many of their opponents in the playoffs, I definitely don't think their division titles were smoke and mirrors. They were who they were, in the division they were in, and they won 6 division titles. I think it's highly incorrect to say they were smoke and mirrors, because you're dealing in complete hypotheticals. Gleeman's point in saying essentially what you called smoke and mirrors, was that they were in the worst division in baseball....put them in the AL East and they're the Blue Jays. Well, yes, but they weren't in the AL East....that's a completely different situation. Who knows how the Twins would have handled their organization if they were in the East, and frankly, who cares? They're in the Central, and what I know is that for 5 of the 6 seasons we won the division, we were a low-payroll team in a crappy stadium that still managed to make the playoffs, regardless of the division. That's pretty darn good in my mind. Regardless of the outcome of the playoffs, it gave us a chance, maybe not a great one, but like I said, even if you're coming from one of the worst divisions in baseball, or have a record perhaps undeserving (?) of a World Series title, over half the time in the last 24 years, that's exactly what we've seen. So I'm not ready to call anything smoke and mirrors. The Cardinals won 83 games in 2006 in a not especially good division and trounced the Tigers in the Series. Just call it what it is, the Twins failing to perform in the playoffs. Don't try to quasi-invalidate their division titles by saying they were in the worst division in baseball. Who the hell cares? They won, and got a chance to prove themselves. They failed in that aspect, but that doesn't take away their titles. Gleeman was right in saying that these teams weren't great teams, that's true, but neither have been 13 of the last 24 World Series champions by his standards. So honestly, what's the point in saying they were a sub-great team? We got 6 division titles out of it and a chance to compete. Unless you're in New York or Boston I think it's very hard to ask for more than that as a fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
Yes, exactly, that's the heart of the conversation that I wish John would've picked up on more. A) That can be really awkward to talk about hypotheticals (especially talking where they would be if they were in a different division) in baseball, and B) Winning a division is what it is. Don't call it anything else. I know I felt great every single time it happened. I didn't immediately think "Ya, but we're a 90-win team, we have no shot". That's both terribly depressing and cynical, but it's also completely untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Stohs
Yet again we have the confusion of last night, and we agree on most points. I didn't say the titles themselves were "all" smoke an mirrors (please see, "...should be recognized as impressive"). The point about smoke and mirrors and winning the division was that some of us, myself included, probably thought the Twins were a better team than they actually were.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMix
Gotcha. My apologies for the confusion.