I’m right there with you Andy …

i’d also emphasize that when in a clutch situation ( runners on base ) that our twins players need to make more adjustments and bare down in making contact , taking pitches to opposite fields either finds a hole , moves a runner up a base and also for opponents defense is forced to make the play ..

twins usually hit just solo homeruns when it doesn’t matter and strikes out when it does matter …

thanks , we needed this  , there are some fans that are purists …

hopefully we are changing in the right direction  , 2026 season was more exciting than the previous seasons , we were not expected in my opinion to consistently compete or contend for the playoffs , hopefully we have a 2027 to prove we are better moving forward , I do have alittle more optimism going forward without Rocco and falvey being gone …

3 hours ago, Blyleven2011 said:

I’m right there with you Andy …

i’d also emphasize that when in a clutch situation ( runners on base ) that our twins players need to make more adjustments and bare down in making contact , taking pitches to opposite fields either finds a hole , moves a runner up a base and also for opponents defense is forced to make the play ..

twins usually hit just solo homeruns when it doesn’t matter and strikes out when it does matter …

thanks , we needed this  , there are some fans that are purists …

hopefully we are changing in the right direction  , 2026 season was more exciting than the previous seasons , we were not expected in my opinion to consistently compete or contend for the playoffs , hopefully we have a 2027 to prove we are better moving forward , I do have alittle more optimism going forward without Rocco and falvey being gone …

Amen, Bly! I don't do this to get clicks, I just want people to rethink what they've been told. I appreciate your support.

18 minutes ago, Andy MacPhail said:

Amen, Bly! I don't do this to get clicks, I just want people to rethink what they've been told. I appreciate your support.

Exactly the point …

some fans are okay with mediocre FO and players , as a life long fan it is very hard to accept …

The Twins need to readopt their old pattern and go back to acceptional fielding, good average with lots of doubles, take the extra base, occasional bunting to throw others defenses off.  But this time meale sure they have 9 solid hitters not 7 with two retreads. 

But not follow their old pitching model.  Their new one is better.  

Before last night's NLCS game, almost every podcaster & broadcaster who I listened to, predicted that LAD with all their big-name bats & pitchers that filled their lineup, rotation & BP, were going to beat MIL & some said easily. Don't get me wrong, LAD do many things right; but MIL has to do them better. Plus MIL has more intangibles in their favor. The Miz didn't have his best stuff but the defense, with DPs & slick plays, their BP & clutch hitting helped to pull out a close game.

I know big sluggers & hurlers are sexy in today's game. For me playing the game right is sexy, From the GM landing a needed trade to a manager knowing how to use his BP to defense turning a slick DP, to a runner turning a double into a triple to a hitter laying down a perfect bunt excites me; hitters striking out, bad defense & pitchers giving up walks & HRs do not. Winning is sexy, losing is not. That's the name of the game.

I know there's this romantic ideal of slap-hitting and drag-bunting your way to a title stemming from - I don't know - nostalgia for How The Game Should Be Played, a reflexive pushback against anything resembling math, the urge to incentivize a more aesthetically-pleasing brand of play, probably other factors.  But it really hasn't yet been proven in practice, at least not in today's game, at the championship level.

So homers don't matter anymore in because some of the top teams this season ranked low in that statistic?  Let's look at some recent history from the World Series champions:

2025 Dodgers: ranked #2 in MLB in home runs

2024 Dodgers: #3

2023 Rangers: #3

2022 Astros: #4

2021 Braves: #3

2020 Dodgers: #1

2019 Nationals: #13, went toe-to-toe HR-wise with the #3 Astros in the World Series (11 homers to 11)

2018 Red Sox: #9

2017 Astros: #2

2016 Cubs: #13, hit 20 homers in the postseason, outhomered their opponent in every round

2015 Royals: #24

So, we have to go back over a decade to find a champion that finished in the bottom half of the league in homers on the year.  The last six champions finished in the top 4.  And since 2015, the only champs to finish outside the top ten did happen to rank in the top 10 in terms of fewest homers allowed (Nats #7, Cubs #5), and those teams stepped their homer games up in the postseason

Now, hitting homers is only half of the power equation since you're only on offense half the time.  Preventing homers is just as important as hitting them.  That's why I noted above that the two teams outside the top 10 in homers were within the top 10 in preventing homers.

Power still plays in the postseason.  You're only facing quality pitching for the most part in the postseason, and it gets harder and harder to hit as the postseason moves on.  If you're going to score without homers, you have to string a lot of baserunners together.  That becomes a taller and taller task as the pitching gets better. 

Even the homer-shy heroes of 2026 have advanced to their current position by winning the homer battle so far.  The Guardians advanced because they kept the White Sox in the park and Jose Ramirez provided the only runs of the decisive Game 5 with a homer.  The Rays relied almost entirely on the homer for two of their three wins over the Yankees (didn't hurt that the Yankees' two biggest home run threats were out our seriously limited).  And what proved to be the difference in last night's Miz/Skubal duel? Brice Turang's homer, the only one of the game

So is this year, with three of the final four ranking in the bottom 10 for homers, an anomaly?  A signal of a true paradigm-shift?  Or are they simply a footnote to be forgotten once the Dodgers (#7 in homers) bludgeon the field like they have the last two years?  I don't know, time will tell.

I'm glad the OP laid this out as they did.  Moneyball is about exploiting market inefficiencies at its core, and these teams very well may have uncovered the next one.  I guess what I'm saying is let's see it actually play out in practice before declaring the homer to be irrelevant.  Let's also discuss analytics for what it is - using information to make informed, calculated decisions - and not what it has been bastardized to become - a catch-all term for anything old-school types don't like

Nice piece.  To your point about the "HRs are king" mindset....the favorite statistic of the analytics crowd this time of year is "in the playoffs the team that outhomers the other has won x of y games".  Gleeman will tweet this, Smoltz will mention it on the broadcast, writers at Athletic and ESPN will cite it.

What they won't say, for some reason, is that OUTHITTING your opponent is actually more correlated to winning in the playoffs than outhomering them.  (Data shows there are actually about 20 stats that better correlate to winning a game than outhomering your opponent. For some reason we only ever hear about one of them though.)

So far this year:  15-4 if you outhomer your opponent, 19-3 if you outhit them.

And it makes sense:  HRs are hits too!  But when you can also string a few hits together it's just another way to score runs.  In the short sample size that is the playoffs, if you can only score runs 1 way you are a bad weekend away from golf season.  Look at the White Sox, they were unbeatable until they very, very, very much weren't.  They could only score runs one way and it cost them their season.  

Analytics and "Moneyball" was about finding competitive advantages to exploit.  It was supposed to be driven by cold data.  Now it seems like the analytics guys just want to push a certain narrative, like they've cracked the code to baseball that hasn't been cracked in 150 years, and homers are the way.  I don't understand it.  

5 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

And what proved to be the difference in last night's Miz/Skubal duel? Brice Turang's homer, the only one of the game

 

That tied the game.  The difference in the game was a chopper up the middle after a walk and a bunt.  

18 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

I know there's this romantic ideal of slap-hitting and drag-bunting your way to a title stemming from - I don't know - nostalgia for How The Game Should Be Played, a reflexive pushback against anything resembling math, the urge to incentivize a more aesthetically-pleasing brand of play, probably other factors.  But it really hasn't yet been proven in practice, at least not in today's game, at the championship level.

So homers don't matter anymore in because some of the top teams this season ranked low in that statistic?  Let's look at some recent history from the World Series champions:

2025 Dodgers: ranked #2 in MLB in home runs

2024 Dodgers: #3

2023 Rangers: #3

2022 Astros: #4

2021 Braves: #3

2020 Dodgers: #1

2019 Nationals: #13, went toe-to-toe HR-wise with the #3 Astros in the World Series (11 homers to 11)

2018 Red Sox: #9

2017 Astros: #2

2016 Cubs: #13, hit 20 homers in the postseason, outhomered their opponent in every round

2015 Royals: #24

So, we have to go back over a decade to find a champion that finished in the bottom half of the league in homers on the year.  The last six champions finished in the top 4.  And since 2015, the only champs to finish outside the top ten did happen to rank in the top 10 in terms of fewest homers allowed (Nats #7, Cubs #5), and those teams stepped their homer games up in the postseason

Now, hitting homers is only half of the power equation since you're only on offense half the time.  Preventing homers is just as important as hitting them.  That's why I noted above that the two teams outside the top 10 in homers were within the top 10 in preventing homers.

Power still plays in the postseason.  You're only facing quality pitching for the most part in the postseason, and it gets harder and harder to hit as the postseason moves on.  If you're going to score without homers, you have to string a lot of baserunners together.  That becomes a taller and taller task as the pitching gets better. 

Even the homer-shy heroes of 2026 have advanced to their current position by winning the homer battle so far.  The Guardians advanced because they kept the White Sox in the park and Jose Ramirez provided the only runs of the decisive Game 5 with a homer.  The Rays relied almost entirely on the homer for two of their three wins over the Yankees (didn't hurt that the Yankees' two biggest home run threats were out our seriously limited).  And what proved to be the difference in last night's Miz/Skubal duel? Brice Turang's homer, the only one of the game

So is this year, with three of the final four ranking in the bottom 10 for homers, an anomaly?  A signal of a true paradigm-shift?  Or are they simply a footnote to be forgotten once the Dodgers (#7 in homers) bludgeon the field like they have the last two years?  I don't know, time will tell.

I'm glad the OP laid this out as they did.  Moneyball is about exploiting market inefficiencies at its core, and these teams very well may have uncovered the next one.  I guess what I'm saying is let's see it actually play out in practice before declaring the homer to be irrelevant.  Let's also discuss analytics for what it is - using information to make informed, calculated decisions - and not what it has been bastardized to become - a catch-all term for anything old-school types don't like

In my statement, I said that LAD does a lot of things right, I imagine all WS champs would have to fall into this category. So that means that they aren't focusing only on HRs which is my main point. I'm not against HRs, but my main point I stress is clutch hitting which could very likely be HRs. & if you look at that list, how many of those teams are big market? How can we go toe to toe with the big guys in a slug fest & hope to win? You can't, The big guys buy up the elite players that the good small teams develop but can't afford. Small teams have to out finesse the big team, after many seasons of building postseason experience, small market, MIL finally have a chance to win it all.

I never said I was against analytics, matter of fact I said I'm for them. But I said most modern hitting analytics is HR bias, you have to take that into consideration & there is a lot more to offense & the game than just HRs, which I hope you can see, Because if we want to compete, we have to exploit these cheaper options which I stated. If we chase only these HR analytics we will remain at best mediocre. You can call me old school, but I assure you, I am not, especially in pitching. Pitching has changed so much & you can't try to fit it into the old standard, you have to adapt. Which is a different subject.

8 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

I know there's this romantic ideal of slap-hitting and drag-bunting your way to a title stemming from - I don't know - nostalgia for How The Game Should Be Played, a reflexive pushback against anything resembling math, the urge to incentivize a more aesthetically-pleasing brand of play, probably other factors.  But it really hasn't yet been proven in practice, at least not in today's game, at the championship level.

So homers don't matter anymore in because some of the top teams this season ranked low in that statistic?  Let's look at some recent history from the World Series champions:

2025 Dodgers: ranked #2 in MLB in home runs

2024 Dodgers: #3

2023 Rangers: #3

2022 Astros: #4

2021 Braves: #3

2020 Dodgers: #1

2019 Nationals: #13, went toe-to-toe HR-wise with the #3 Astros in the World Series (11 homers to 11)

2018 Red Sox: #9

2017 Astros: #2

2016 Cubs: #13, hit 20 homers in the postseason, outhomered their opponent in every round

2015 Royals: #24

So, we have to go back over a decade to find a champion that finished in the bottom half of the league in homers on the year.  The last six champions finished in the top 4.  And since 2015, the only champs to finish outside the top ten did happen to rank in the top 10 in terms of fewest homers allowed (Nats #7, Cubs #5), and those teams stepped their homer games up in the postseason

Now, hitting homers is only half of the power equation since you're only on offense half the time.  Preventing homers is just as important as hitting them.  That's why I noted above that the two teams outside the top 10 in homers were within the top 10 in preventing homers.

Power still plays in the postseason.  You're only facing quality pitching for the most part in the postseason, and it gets harder and harder to hit as the postseason moves on.  If you're going to score without homers, you have to string a lot of baserunners together.  That becomes a taller and taller task as the pitching gets better. 

Even the homer-shy heroes of 2026 have advanced to their current position by winning the homer battle so far.  The Guardians advanced because they kept the White Sox in the park and Jose Ramirez provided the only runs of the decisive Game 5 with a homer.  The Rays relied almost entirely on the homer for two of their three wins over the Yankees (didn't hurt that the Yankees' two biggest home run threats were out our seriously limited).  And what proved to be the difference in last night's Miz/Skubal duel? Brice Turang's homer, the only one of the game

So is this year, with three of the final four ranking in the bottom 10 for homers, an anomaly?  A signal of a true paradigm-shift?  Or are they simply a footnote to be forgotten once the Dodgers (#7 in homers) bludgeon the field like they have the last two years?  I don't know, time will tell.

I'm glad the OP laid this out as they did.  Moneyball is about exploiting market inefficiencies at its core, and these teams very well may have uncovered the next one.  I guess what I'm saying is let's see it actually play out in practice before declaring the homer to be irrelevant.  Let's also discuss analytics for what it is - using information to make informed, calculated decisions - and not what it has been bastardized to become - a catch-all term for anything old-school types don't like

You have perfectly illustrated the mindset I referred to in my post just after yours.  If you are really interested in data and math, surely you would be interested to know that out hitting your opponent has a higher correlation to winning that out homering your opponent.  

2026 playoffs to date:

Outhomer your opponent: 15-4 

Outhit your opponent: 19-3 

2025 playoffs: 

Outhomer your opponent:  31-5

Outhit your opponent:  39-4

To be most successful in the playoffs on offense you need more than one way of generating runs.  

1 hour ago, Woof Bronzer said:

You have perfectly illustrated the mindset I referred to in my post just after yours.  If you are really interested in data and math, surely you would be interested to know that out hitting your opponent has a higher correlation to winning that out homering your opponent.  

2026 playoffs to date:

Outhomer your opponent: 15-4 

Outhit your opponent: 19-3 

2025 playoffs: 

Outhomer your opponent:  31-5

Outhit your opponent:  39-4

To be most successful in the playoffs on offense you need more than one way of generating runs.  

You're completely misunderstanding my point, which I concede I might not be doing a very good job of making.

My point is not that power is the only way you need to score runs in the playoffs.  Nowhere do I say that.  "Power plays in the playoffs" is not saying "power is the only thing you need."  You certainly do need to get runs any way you can get them.  What I'm saying is that it makes life a lot easier if power  is one of those ways.  It should be one of those tools in the toolbox.   Showing that outhomering your opponent (half of which is your pitching staff's ability to keep the ball in the yard - don't forget about that important piece of the equation) led to winning 86% of the time last year does not disprove that point. 

It's not a coincidence that our champions consistently rank toward the top of the league in homers.  You have to go back to 2014 to find a champ that wasn't top 10 in either hitting homers or preventing homers, and the majority of those rank higher in hitting than preventing.  There's also pretty strong evidence that the percentage of runs coming via the homer increases as you move from the regular season to the playoffs; in other words, the power tool increases in importance (note that I'm not saying it becomes the only tool that matters)

You're saying that you need more than one way of generating runs in the playoffs.  I agree.  What I'm saying is that you have an incredibly narrow path to success if power isn't one of those ways.  

12 hours ago, The Great Hambino said:

You're completely misunderstanding my point, which I concede I might not be doing a very good job of making.

My point is not that power is the only way you need to score runs in the playoffs.  Nowhere do I say that.  "Power plays in the playoffs" is not saying "power is the only thing you need."  You certainly do need to get runs any way you can get them.  What I'm saying is that it makes life a lot easier if power  is one of those ways.  It should be one of those tools in the toolbox.   Showing that outhomering your opponent (half of which is your pitching staff's ability to keep the ball in the yard - don't forget about that important piece of the equation) led to winning 86% of the time last year does not disprove that point. 

It's not a coincidence that our champions consistently rank toward the top of the league in homers.  You have to go back to 2014 to find a champ that wasn't top 10 in either hitting homers or preventing homers, and the majority of those rank higher in hitting than preventing.  There's also pretty strong evidence that the percentage of runs coming via the homer increases as you move from the regular season to the playoffs; in other words, the power tool increases in importance (note that I'm not saying it becomes the only tool that matters)

You're saying that you need more than one way of generating runs in the playoffs.  I agree.  What I'm saying is that you have an incredibly narrow path to success if power isn't one of those ways.  

I don't know, you started by ridiculing the notion that hits are meaningful as some sort of uneducated, old fashioned opinion.  Then you erroneously stated the Brewers won Game 1 on a homer while totally failing to mention they actually won it on a slap hit after a bunt, the very strategy you dismissed as "romantic".  You seem to be really invested in the idea that homers are the best way to win games.

But this isn't what analytics are supposed to be about, as you yourself note.   You also suggested anyone who disagrees with you is intentionally ignoring math.  This is another trademark of the analytics crowd:  if you don't get it you're just a rube.  

Here are some additional metrics that have a higher correlation to winning than out homering your opponent:

Out-XHBing your opponent

Out OPSing your opponent

Out OBPing your opponent

Out batting average-ing your opponent (lol)

We need to end the cult of the home run.  Home runs are one way of scoring runs but as teams like the Brewers and Guards show, you can be successful without them.  Getting on base, hitting with power, avoiding outs, and being able to win games in different ways is more important than just hitting home runs.  The data is pretty clear on this. 

Your comment about WS winners being top 10 in HRs perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about.  You're starting with an assumption - HRs are the most important - and cherry picking data to support that.  But in a vacuum that statistic is meaningless unless you compare a bunch of other data.  What other statistics do WS champs seem to share? For example, you'd have to go all the way back to 2014 to find a WS champ who wasn't in the top 10 in OBP.   That's math and data, right?  Isn't that data point just as meaningful as your stat on top 10 HR teams?

One could go through hundreds of stats like this to determine which ones best predict success.  Yet you don't seem to be interested in this, and accuse folks who disagree with you to be "pushback against anything resembling math" and characterize analytics as "anything old-school types don't like".  To be honest you seem to be the one pushing back on math, and labeling any disagreement as "nostalgia for How The Game Should Be Played".  It sure seems to me like you are guilty of the very things you accuse others of doing. 

Analytics shouldn't be about fixing the narrative, and finding stats to support it.  It should be about objectively analyzing data, and there's very little objectivity in your post.  You are starting from a thesis you believe to be obviously true - HRs are of primary importance - and working backward to find evidence to support that, while ignoring all other math and data.  You are doing the exact things you criticize "old school" folks of doing, just using different metrics.  

Nice write-up. Milwaukee has done very well with their international signings. 
 

Tampa is also a good example for Moneyball 2.0. They have bunted more times than any team in the league this season. 
 

In the playoffs, defense also becomes critical. It would be interesting to have an analysis of the games decided by 1 or 2 plays made or not made.   Last night’s Brewers -Dodgers game, Will Smith not utilizing ABS challenges early in the game likely influenced the results. 

4 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

I don't know, you started by ridiculing the notion that hits are meaningful as some sort of uneducated, old fashioned opinion.  Then you erroneously stated the Brewers won Game 1 on a homer while totally failing to mention they actually won it on a slap hit after a bunt, the very strategy you dismissed as "romantic".  You seem to be really invested in the idea that homers are the best way to win games.

But this isn't what analytics are supposed to be about, as you yourself note.   You also suggested anyone who disagrees with you is intentionally ignoring math.  This is another trademark of the analytics crowd:  if you don't get it you're just a rube.  

Here are some additional metrics that have a higher correlation to winning than out homering your opponent:

Out-XHBing your opponent

Out OPSing your opponent

Out OBPing your opponent

Out batting average-ing your opponent (lol)

We need to end the cult of the home run.  Home runs are one way of scoring runs but as teams like the Brewers and Guards show, you can be successful without them.  Getting on base, hitting with power, avoiding outs, and being able to win games in different ways is more important than just hitting home runs.  The data is pretty clear on this. 

Your comment about WS winners being top 10 in HRs perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about.  You're starting with an assumption - HRs are the most important - and cherry picking data to support that.  But in a vacuum that statistic is meaningless unless you compare a bunch of other data.  What other statistics do WS champs seem to share? For example, you'd have to go all the way back to 2014 to find a WS champ who wasn't in the top 10 in OBP.   That's math and data, right?  Isn't that data point just as meaningful as your stat on top 10 HR teams?

One could go through hundreds of stats like this to determine which ones best predict success.  Yet you don't seem to be interested in this, and accuse folks who disagree with you to be "pushback against anything resembling math" and characterize analytics as "anything old-school types don't like".  To be honest you seem to be the one pushing back on math, and labeling any disagreement as "nostalgia for How The Game Should Be Played".  It sure seems to me like you are guilty of the very things you accuse others of doing. 

Analytics shouldn't be about fixing the narrative, and finding stats to support it.  It should be about objectively analyzing data, and there's very little objectivity in your post.  You are starting from a thesis you believe to be obviously true - HRs are of primary importance - and working backward to find evidence to support that, while ignoring all other math and data.  You are doing the exact things you criticize "old school" folks of doing, just using different metrics.  

BINGO! Thank you, A quote I like. "You can make stats say anything you want, if you torture them hard enough"

3 hours ago, Eris said:

Nice write-up. Milwaukee has done very well with their international signings. 
 

Tampa is also a good example for Moneyball 2.0. They have bunted more times than any team in the league this season. 
 

In the playoffs, defense also becomes critical. It would be interesting to have an analysis of the games decided by 1 or 2 plays made or not made.   Last night’s Brewers -Dodgers game, Will Smith not utilizing ABS challenges early in the game likely influenced the results. 

Thank you. There are so many variables that influence postseason, IMO, BP management is big.

“They are perfectly fine with being the type of player that they are,” Vogelbach said, “and being the best at what they do.”

This a quote from MIL's hitting coach. Why doesn't it doesn't surprise me.

Another observation; All top 13 MLB BP teams made the postseason except PIT. I've always stressed putting together a top BP & how to manage it. A top-notch BP & their management is not only essential in advancing in the postseason but also being able to get there. 

IMO, the main reason it took so many years for the Twins to make the postseason & win a game was that the pitching was totally spent by the time they got there, even though they had an excellent rotation & BP. This was due to poor BP management. 

Hey 2019 bomba squad season was super fun but it got us nothing but a hold over hangover for years. I would take 10 high obp guys on a roster with a couple sluggers and a base running specialist every time. The twins really have dropped the ball up until recently in drafting and trading for the best type of player to win consistently.

The Venn Diagram of “good hitter” and “good home run hitter” has a LOT of overlap. You’re discussing like every HR hitter is like Matt Wallner and everyone else is like Luis Arraez.

28 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

Hey 2019 bomba squad season was super fun but it got us nothing but a hold over hangover for years. I would take 10 high obp guys on a roster with a couple sluggers and a base running specialist every time. The twins really have dropped the ball up until recently in drafting and trading for the best type of player to win consistently.

Yes, that was fun. IMO, MLB instituted the "juiced ball" so the NYY could set the team HR record. But the Twins beat them out. The next year they stopped it, while the Twins started their new obsolete mindset,

43 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The Venn Diagram of “good hitter” and “good home run hitter” has a LOT of overlap. You’re discussing like every HR hitter is like Matt Wallner and everyone else is like Luis Arraez.

My main objective wasn't to distinguish between hitters because you're right there is a hugh variation of hitters. But more in the faulty HR mindset that HRs are supreme, nothing else is of no concern therefore tremendously underrated. The need to abandon the old NYY model & embrace the MIL model, that goes beyond hitting. I hoped that I had made that clear. 

IMO, Wallner is a victim of such a mindset.