Mackey: Twins owner has '100% confidence' in Gardenhire and Ryan

[gunnarthor]

You are correct in your assertion that they had a winning record against the A.L. East in 2007.

 

However, I don't see how anyone can be unconcerned about the way the Twins are trending against the A.L. East:

 

2002 15-22 40.5%

2003 17-15 53.1%

2004 19-19 50%

2005 18-14 56.26%

2006 22-10 68.8%

2007 19-17 52.8%

2008 13-16 44.9%

2009 10-20 33.3%

2010 14-17 45.2%

2011 10-25 28.6%

 

 

I understand that the East has gotten stronger overall and that there is generally more money available to those teams. But in the first half of that decade, the Twins beat up on the Rays and, to a lesser extent, the Blue Jays. They've never been good against the Yankees but held their own against Boston and Baltimore. In the 2nd half of that decade, they've had a winning record against only one team, Baltimore (19-15). I haven't had the heart to put in this year's totals yet.

 

I find that cause for concern regardless of the unbalanced schedule.

The Twins played .500 against the Yanks several times. Red Sox fans complained about the dome almost as much as white sox fans. I just don't think 30 games or so really says much in an individual year.

[tobynotjason]

So if enough Gardenhire supporters say so, the demonstrable fact that the AL Central has been the weakest division in baseball over the past decade somehow doesn't matter if you're interested in evaluating exactly how good the Twins have been over the past decade? All that matters is the titles and nyah nyah nyah nothing else matters.

 

There's a reason the argument against this is hard to articulate: IT DOESN'T EXIST. Good for them for winning their division a bunch. But it simply was not as difficult as winning elsewhere, and ignoring (or worse, denying) this blithely seems like saying "MLB, market to me, baby! How about 15 divisions of two teams each and I'll be overjoyed when 'we' go on a 10 year run of 8 division titles vs. the Royals."

[gunnarthor]

So if enough Gardenhire supporters say so, the demonstrable fact that the AL Central has been the weakest division in baseball over the past decade somehow doesn't matter if you're interested in evaluating exactly how good the Twins have been over the past decade? All that matters is the titles and nyah nyah nyah nothing else matters.

 

There's a reason the argument against this is hard to articulate: IT DOESN'T EXIST. Good for them for winning their division a bunch. But it simply was not as difficult as winning elsewhere, and ignoring (or worse, denying) this blithely seems like saying "MLB, market to me, baby! How about 15 divisions of two teams each and I'll be overjoyed when 'we' go on a 10 year run of 8 division titles vs. the Royals."

Meh. I think the argument changes yearly. For example, our 06 team won the AL Central where the 3rd place team, the reigning WS champs, won 90 games. The 4th place team had a pyth 89 wins. We won .593 of our games overall, but .629 against the east. Toronto, who finished second in the east, would have been fourth. In 07, we won at a .488 clip but played .500 against the east. It's cyclical. For instance, the 02 West was loaded - third place team won 93 games, same number as Boston and one fewer than us. Twins went 19-17 against the west, winning all series except the Oakland one (we got that in the postseason though). Twins were 16 up during the season and had a bad little road trip to Balt/Bost (1-5), dropping them to only 13 games up. In 2000, the Yanks won the East with 87 wins, which would have finished 3rd in the central. The early part of this decade, the best teams were in the AL West, the Central took over for a few years 05-07 or so (In those four years only KC (every year) and Det (04) and Chi (07) had losing records against the East). With the Rays emergence in 08, East went on top. (And the NL was significantly worse than the AL)

 

It seems to me that this idea that the Twins wouldn't be competitive in the east is a made up complaint to minimize actual successes this team has had. The Twins were constructed to compete against the central. If Ryan et al were building us to compete against NY, Bos, TB and Balt (assuming Toronto gets kicked out), the team would have been built differently. They probably would've loaded up on RH bats b/c of how they play in Fenway, Yankee field and Camden. Probably would've focused more on LH pitching then they have. Probably would have been even stronger advocates for revenue sharing. But that's not what's happened. We can play 'what if' games all the time. What if every team was forced to have the same payroll? Seems to me that's a bigger impact than scheduling.

[Shane Wahl]

It seems to me that this idea that the Twins wouldn't be competitive in the east is a made up complaint to minimize actual successes this team has had. The Twins were constructed to compete against the central. If Ryan et al were building us to compete against NY, Bos, TB and Balt (assuming Toronto gets kicked out), the team would have been built differently. They probably would've loaded up on RH bats b/c of how they play in Fenway, Yankee field and Camden. Probably would've focused more on LH pitching then they have. Probably would have been even stronger advocates for revenue sharing. But that's not what's happened. We can play 'what if' games all the time. What if every team was forced to have the same payroll? Seems to me that's a bigger impact than scheduling.

Exactly. I have a VERY hard time believing that the Twins would be constructed this way if they were in the AL East. The situation is different. Is like listening to announcers all the time remark idiocies like "if that guy wouldn't have been caught stealing, that would have been a 2-run homer" which ignores that the situation would be changed if there were still a runner on. Or when people say after X player leaves the organization and gets hurt (like Santana) that it was a good thing he left . . . which ignores that the situation can be very different with different teams. Mark Prior is probably still pitching well today if Dusty Baker didn't run him in the ground on the mound, for instance.

[Guest USAFChief]

Meh. I think the argument changes yearly. For example, our 06 team won the AL Central where the 3rd place team, the reigning WS champs, won 90 games. The 4th place team had a pyth 89 wins. We won .593 of our games overall, but .629 against the east. Toronto, who finished second in the east, would have been fourth. In 07, we won at a .488 clip but played .500 against the east. It's cyclical. For instance, the 02 West was loaded - third place team won 93 games, same number as Boston and one fewer than us. Twins went 19-17 against the west, winning all series except the Oakland one (we got that in the postseason though). Twins were 16 up during the season and had a bad little road trip to Balt/Bost (1-5), dropping them to only 13 games up. In 2000, the Yanks won the East with 87 wins, which would have finished 3rd in the central. The early part of this decade, the best teams were in the AL West, the Central took over for a few years 05-07 or so (In those four years only KC (every year) and Det (04) and Chi (07) had losing records against the East). With the Rays emergence in 08, East went on top. (And the NL was significantly worse than the AL)

 

It seems to me that this idea that the Twins wouldn't be competitive in the east is a made up complaint to minimize actual successes this team has had. The Twins were constructed to compete against the central. If Ryan et al were building us to compete against NY, Bos, TB and Balt (assuming Toronto gets kicked out), the team would have been built differently. They probably would've loaded up on RH bats b/c of how they play in Fenway, Yankee field and Camden. Probably would've focused more on LH pitching then they have. Probably would have been even stronger advocates for revenue sharing. But that's not what's happened. We can play 'what if' games all the time. What if every team was forced to have the same payroll? Seems to me that's a bigger impact than scheduling.

I am not one to denigrate the past decade of regular season success.

 

That said, you can't in the same paragraph claim the Twins WERE successful against the ALE, and then turn around and claim the Twins would have been constructed differently in order to do just that.

 

Not to mention, if the Twins could have so easily been better constructed, why weren't they?

[gunnarthor]

That said, you can't in the same paragraph claim the Twins WERE successful against the ALE, and then turn around and claim the Twins would have been constructed differently in order to do just that.

 

Not to mention, if the Twins could have so easily been better constructed, why weren't they?

I think you missed the point - mainly that the record in 30 or so games every year (in the is case against the East) is generally unimportant. I'm claiming that their record against the AL east is unimportant and, basically, irrelevant regardless of whether or not they've "had success."