Tangible Improvement

[James Richter]

The 2014 Twins were better than the 2013 Twins. Way better. Unfortunately (for Gardy, the coaching staff, and the marketing department), the win totals of the past 2 seasons disguise the improvement.

 

Look at the Twins' franchise encyclopedia page at Baseball Reference:

www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/

 

In the R and RA columns you can see that the Twins have improved their differential by over 100 runs year over year. That's huge.

 

Then compare the W-L% to the pythW-L%. Pythagorean W-L% is a formula for predicting wins and losses based on runs scored and allowed. Over the long haul, it works pretty well. For example, the simple formula I like to use - 1/(1 + (RA/R)squared) - predicts that the 2013-14 Twins, having allowed 1565 runs and scored only 1329 would have a record of 136-188. And they do. But in any given season, the actual results tend to be off by a few wins. It all depends on when you score your runs and when you give them up.

 

Last season the Twins were fortunate - the bullpen generally held the leads it was given and the 2013 Twins managed to win 3-5 more games than they should have - they were fundamentally just as bad as the 2011 team that lost 99. This season, the wheel of fortune turned the other way, and the Twins lost 4-5 more games than they should have - their run differential suggests a team that should have won 74-75 games.

 

There's still a lot of work to do to get this team above .500, but don't let the 90+ losses fool you. The 2014 Twins scored more runs and allowed fewer runs than any of the truly dreadful teams of the previous 3 seasons. They are finally heading in the right direction.

[drjim]

I would also argue that even relatively minor tweaks (a decent starter and LF and turning over some of the bullpen) would increase the baseline talent level by at least 4-5 wins. If they go big it could be even better.

 

If they hire the right manager they really could take a pretty significant jump next year

[James Richter]

One thing that strikes me about the Pythagorean comparison is that the 2014 Twins' offense and starting pitching, combined with the effectiveness of the 2013 team's bullpen (particularly in terms of K/9) might have resulted in another year of over-performing the expected win% by 3-5. That would put them pretty close to .500 without doing anything to the defense or rotation yet. Moving on from Swarzak, Duensing and Burton and replacing them with guys who consistently miss bats (whether internally or FAs) could add a lot.

[powrwrap]

If they had decent outfielders that could chase down fly balls instead of statues (Kubel, Willingham, Parmelee) or brain dead (Arcia), or guys playing out of position (Santana, Escobar, Parmelee, Herrmann), they probably would have won another 10 games.

[D. Hocking]

If they had decent outfielders that could chase down fly balls instead of statues (Kubel, Willingham, Parmelee) or brain dead (Arcia), or guys playing out of position (Santana, Escobar, Parmelee, Herrmann), they probably would have won another 10 games.

They were talking about this on 1500 this morning.  I guess there is a stat or calculation you can make where you can adjust the team ERA by the fielding numbers.  Our team ERA dropped a half a point when you factored in our bad fielding numbers.

[powrwrap]

They were talking about this on 1500 this morning.  I guess there is a stat or calculation you can make where you can adjust the team ERA by the fielding numbers.  Our team ERA dropped a half a point when you factored in our bad fielding numbers.

I suppose there's a stat for everything. Did they say how many more games the Twins would have won?

 

I've got to believe in a bigger park like Target Field outfield defense is going to be important.

[stringer bell]

If they had decent outfielders that could chase down fly balls instead of statues (Kubel, Willingham, Parmelee) or brain dead (Arcia), or guys playing out of position (Santana, Escobar, Parmelee, Herrmann), they probably would have won another 10 games.

Out of position--Santana is the only one that played substantially "out of position" and according to BBRef, he was slightly below average. Parmelee started one game in center field, Herrmann is an outfielder who can catch, and Escobar played two games in the OF (1 start IIRC). You may want to include Nuñez as an OF, but he did play quite a bit of OF for the Yankees.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I was going to start a similar thread. Baseball is a funny sport. Despite seeing a very similar record, this team improved significantly over the 2013 squad. Most predictors I saw before the season (myself included) put them somewhere in the 71-73 win range.

 

Well, they technically missed that mark... but if you look at their pythag, they were actually a little better than 73 wins, the high mark for many of us.

 

Still a long way to go but it's nice to finally see improvement of any kind, particularly with so much of that improvement coming from players under the age of 25.

[Kwak]

I was going to start a similar thread. Baseball is a funny sport. Despite seeing a very similar record, this team improved significantly over the 2013 squad. Most predictors I saw before the season (myself included) put them somewhere in the 71-73 win range.

 

Well, they technically missed that mark... but if you look at their pythag, they were actually a little better than 73 wins, the high mark for many of us.

 

Still a long way to go but it's nice to finally see improvement of any kind, particularly with so much of that improvement coming from players under the age of 25.

Q:  If the Twins were a "73 win team", why didn't they win 73?

[Mike Sixel]

Q:  If the Twins were a "73 win team", why didn't they win 73?

 

Random variation. People hate that, but that's what it is. There is probably not a root cause. Over a season, if they played it out with those numbers over and over, they win 73 more often than any number. But, sometimes they win more, sometimes less.

 

It's just random variation.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Q:  If the Twins were a "73 win team", why didn't they win 73?

Statistical variation. Put that team on the field for ten identical seasons and they average 74-ish wins a season.

 

The point is that the team was marginally better than their record. They didn't drastically over- or under-perform. They were a bad team, which is an improvement over the 2013 squad, which was flat-out awful.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I wonder what would have been acceptable performance for TR/ownership not to fire Gardy?

 

Nolasco not imploding probably gets them up to 72-73 wins, but other than that, I'm not seeing a lot else that Gardy could have done differently.  (The front office's pursuit of Garza/Santana suggests they weren't real confident in the SP even before Nolasco's implosion anyway.)

 

The Gardy/Andy "bullpen magic" seemed to dry up a bit this season, which as mentioned may have cost them a few more pythag wins, but it's not like they got handed a very good group this year -- a lot of mediocre holdovers rather than any new blood.

 

Now, if Gardy/Andy were the ones telling the front office, "we like these guys" -- that's certainly a strike against them.  Otherwise, it looks like they were set up to fail.  The plan appears to have been: let him finally get that 1000th win and the humidor, but barring something surprising, move on after 2014.

[ashbury]

but other than that, I'm not seeing a lot else that Gardy could have done differently. 

There's a billion ways the on-field staff could have done things "differently".  99% of those would have been for the worse.  But unless Gardy is a Baseball God, there is some percentage of things that could have gone better if a different approach had been tried.  This will be true of any manager, from the best to the worst.

 

My view that Gardy should go was based on a dawning perception that there were not enough upside surprises to counterbalance the things that went wrong the past few years.

 

Scanning through this year's players, and to make it brief, I'll assort players this way, in no particular order:

 

Plus: Dozier, Plouffe, Hughes, Fuld, Perkins, Suzuki, Escobar, Santana, Vargas.

 

Negative: Florimon, Nolasco, Mauer, Hicks, Deduno, Arcia, Parmelee, Milone, Willingham, May, Colabello, Pinto, "Kubartelett", Worley

 

Omitted/Meh: Gibson, Nunez, Schafer, Duensing, Swarzak, Morales, Correia, Burton/Fien/Pressly

 

Geez, it's not my intention to start an in-depth discussion - every one of these placements could be debated.  The guys in my Meh category maybe should be given credit to Gardy and his guys, except that IMO the results either weren't strong enough to call a plus (Gibson) or else essentially any decent manager would have gotten similar results (the rest in the list).

 

I give Gardy and his staff great credit for the guys in the Plus category.  Plouffe's quote yesterday about Gardy believing in him when no one else did, even if a bit of hyperbole at an emotional time, says a lot to me - Gardy took two failed shortstops and found roles for them that allowed them to be major-league average or even a little better at 2B/3B - and major-league average is not a cheap commodity to be found on the waiver wire most times.  Hughes is an obvious success story too.  Kudos.

 

It's the negative list that finally gets to me.  Any individual case, you can say it's the player.  In many cases, it probably is the player. And yet, each of these guys has some talent, and it's the manager's and coaches' jobs to get the most out of them.  To find answers.  Maybe Mauer's problems are unsolveable until the brain circuitry rewires itself just an epsilon more; maybe Nolasco was headstrong and only lately has responded to coaching; maybe Parms and Cola just don't have that last bit of talent to go from AAA to the Majors.  Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe.  But going by results, I just can't defend the aggregate in this part of the list.

 

The nice thing about changing managers is that the positives Gardy and coaches have brought will likely not be lost.  Plouffe and Dozier should continue to be productive, likewise Hughes, likewise the others.  If good staff are hired, some of the things they try may work with other players, and be added to those positives.

 

I just thought it was time.

[TheLeviathan]

Random variation. People hate that, but that's what it is. There is probably not a root cause. Over a season, if they played it out with those numbers over and over, they win 73 more often than any number. But, sometimes they win more, sometimes less.

 

It's just random variation.

 

Which is encouraging for next year as well.  It means that this team actually played a bit better than we might think it did.  If you believe in run differential as telling (I do), then the Twins might be able to plan on 3-5 wins more next year just on having better luck.  74ish wins is within striking distance of a jump to competitive play with an aggressive offseason as drjim pointed out earlier.

[gunnarthor]

One weird thing about defensive statistics seems, at least to me, how most players aren't good.  For instance, only 8 second baseman had positive defensive numbers according to fangraphs.  Only 9 CFers, 3 RFers, 5 LFers.  Obviously, it probably depends on what defensive stat you are using and I do think the Twins were pretty bad, but I'm not completely sure how to gauge it.

 

Interestingly, team fielding stats show that the Astros, despite all their shifting (or because of it?), were easily the worst defensive team.

[Brock Beauchamp]

One weird thing about defensive statistics seems, at least to me, how most players aren't good.  For instance, only 8 second baseman had positive defensive numbers according to fangraphs.  Only 9 CFers, 3 RFers, 5 LFers.  Obviously, it probably depends on what defensive stat you are using and I do think the Twins were pretty bad, but I'm not completely sure how to gauge it.

I think that has a lot to do with the concept of a replacement player.

 

Offensively, the gap between a replacement player and a competent player is huge and might be as much as 100 OPS points.

 

Defensively, the gap is much smaller between replacement level and competency, as many "replacement players" are already competent defensively. That's why they're on the roster in the first place. Nobody keeps around a guy who is replacement level offensively and worse than replacement level defensively. That's a useless player, often referred to as "Jason Bartlett" in some circles.

[James Richter]

According to Fangraphs, the Twins' pitchers were dead last in the Majors in BABIP against and LOB%. Most of the starters had xFIPs significantly lower than their ERAs. The same group, paired with an average defense, could all be expected to give up fewer runs next year. Increasing the staff K% will contribute to this as well - swapping 4 months of Correia for a full season of May + a bullpen retool should go a long way.

 

The LOB% problem is where I see different coaching possibly contributing. For whatever reason, this staff simply fell apart as soon as somebody got on base, yielding crooked numbers game after game. I hope the new pitching coach & manager make that a particular point of emphasis. Bring the LOB% to around league average, and the offense should have an easier time keeping up.

[SwainZag]

According to Fangraphs, the Twins' pitchers were dead last in the Majors in BABIP against and LOB%. Most of the starters had xFIPs significantly lower than their ERAs. The same group, paired with an average defense, could all be expected to give up fewer runs next year. Increasing the staff K% will contribute to this as well - swapping 4 months of Correia for a full season of May + a bullpen retool should go a long way.

 

The LOB% problem is where I see different coaching possibly contributing. For whatever reason, this staff simply fell apart as soon as somebody got on base, yielding crooked numbers game after game. I hope the new pitching coach & manager make that a particular point of emphasis. Bring the LOB% to around league average, and the offense should have an easier time keeping up.

 

Back to the contrary, with that average defense you mentioned in the first paragraph how much would the LOB% go down?  They would seemingly go hand in hand in my opinion.

[Otto von Ballpark]

My view that Gardy should go was based on a dawning perception that there were not enough upside surprises to counterbalance the things that went wrong the past few years.

 

Scanning through this year's players, and to make it brief, I'll assort players this way, in no particular order:

 

Plus: Dozier, Plouffe, Hughes, Fuld, Perkins, Suzuki, Escobar, Santana, Vargas.

 

Negative: Florimon, Nolasco, Mauer, Hicks, Deduno, Arcia, Parmelee, Milone, Willingham, May, Colabello, Pinto, "Kubartelett", Worley

 

Omitted/Meh: Gibson, Nunez, Schafer, Duensing, Swarzak, Morales, Correia, Burton/Fien/Pressly

I just thought it was time.

But TR assembled that team.  And how many of these guys should we have expected to be better in 2014?  Hicks, I guess, although he had a pretty spotty history even as a prospect.  Nolasco, maybe, but Gardy/Andy barely touched him.  Mauer thrived under Gardy for many years prior to 2014.  Florimon, Deduno, Parmelee, and Colabello were probably lucky to be MLB in 2014.

 

Worley actually stands out to me on this list -- I know we got him relatively cheaply, so it wasn't instantly damning to Gardy/Andy when he struggled mightily in 2013, but I wonder if the staff rendered a final judgement on him in March 2014 that turned out to be pretty darn wrong.  Still, selling him for nothing when they had a "free" season to work with him in the minors was ultimately TR's call.  Same for "Kubartlett" -- that can't be all on Gardy.

 

I probably agree that it was time for a change from Gardy/Andy, but I guess I am not seeing why at the same time, TR has a contract for life.  Has anybody been able to get any kind of specifics out of TR here?  Why did he take the hit for 2013, but not 2014 with largely the same cast of players at Gardy's disposal?  Did TR expect Nolasco to be a difference-maker, or what?

[Riverbrian]

Did TR expect Nolasco to be a difference-maker, or what?

Based on the size and length of contract. I think its safe to assume that TR felt Nolasco should make a difference.

[Shane Wahl]

Honestly, they are 2/3 of the way there in terms of my "this would really improve things, and make me pretty much happy for the offseason." The third part is signing Ervin Santana (we'll say 2/30, or 3/39).

 

I hope that the manager is filled with A) Dougie, or Dave Martinez. I would want Bruno and Molitor to be hired back and for the Twins to go completely out of the organization for a pitching coach.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Based on the size and length of contract. I think its safe to assume that TR felt Nolasco should make a difference.

Fair point.

 

But my point was that Nolasco and Hughes were about the only big offseason additions to the 2014 team, as compared to the 2013 team.  And the team did improve by 4 real wins and 12 pythag wins.  Nobody really predicted anything different for this club.

 

Either TR had some unrealistic expectations for the 2014 squad, or he wasn't being terribly honest about his assessment of Gardy and his own performance after 2013.

 

(Actually, that latter explanation seems fairly likely to me right now -- I think the org approached 2014 as another tough year in the rebuild, and figured they'd leave Gardy at the helm to collect his 1000th win, but would can him barring any surprises. Thus, the Nolasco/Hughes contracts were perhaps less about significantly improving and more trying to stabilize a desperate starting staff.)

[James Richter]

Better defense and K% would undoubtedly help the LOB%, but might not be enough to overcome what happened in the 2nd half this year. How many times did we see the starters cruising along only to suddenly yield 5 baserunners in one inning? The pitchers seemed to make more bad pitches with runners on. Maybe it's mechanical, maybe it's mental. It strikes me as a weakness that deserves the focus of the new coaching staff.

[James Richter]

I think the Gardy firing is mainly a PR thing, addressing a perception amongst the fans that another 90+ loss season = no improvement. I see that perception every day on TD. This thread is an attempt to refute that perception somewhat. It's very possible that Gardy might have kept his job if the improvements in the talent on the field had shown up more accurately in the W-L record.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think the Gardy firing is mainly a PR thing, addressing a perception amongst the fans that another 90+ win season = no improvement. I see that perception every day on TD. This thread is an attempt to refute that perception somewhat. It's very possible that Gardy might have kept his job if the improvements in the talent on the field had shown up more accurately in the W-L record.

Agreed, which is why I am a little disappointed in TR for doing it.  I guess some accountability is better than none, even if it eludes our GM for life.

[Mike Sixel]

I think the Gardy firing is mainly a PR thing, addressing a perception amongst the fans that another 90+ win season = no improvement. I see that perception every day on TD. This thread is an attempt to refute that perception somewhat. It's very possible that Gardy might have kept his job if the improvements in the talent on the field had shown up more accurately in the W-L record.

 

I think the Gardy firing is that companies need to refresh their leadership occasionally, that they didn't feel Gardy would be the best guy going forward, that the fans didn't want him back, that (and I'm guessing here) Gardy and Ryan didn't agree on a few things (and Ryan is the boss), that maybe they wanted to see more flexibility in his approach this year than they saw, that maybe Kubartlett was his idea.......I don't think this is ONE THING.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Heck, in terms of tangible improvement, B-Ref shows us with a 102 OPS+ or better for our all 9 of our listed position player starters for 2014.  Only two at that level for 2013, 6 in 2012, 2 in 2011... actually, I don't know if we've ever had such an achievement.  7 of 9 in 2002 was the previous best in the Gardy era.

 

It's far from a finished product (and admittedly the above criteria includes the now-departed Willingham), but it suggests a team on the improving track.  Add an actual plus MLB pitcher to complement Hughes and get some more interesting bullpen arms for 2015 and I don't mind this team at all.

[stringer bell]

IMHO, it isn't out of the realm for the Twins to contend next year.  Much like Baltimore this year and Boston last year, everything needs to go right.  The Twins have probably less margin for error than the aforementioned clubs, but I am of the opinion that 75-80% of pitchers are unpredictable.  Guys who look like studs one year (Masterson, Ubaldo) are duds the next.  Somebody like Scott Kazmir rises from the dead and puts together two straight outstanding seasons.  Beyond the King Felixes and until this year Verlanders, there aren't many guys you can write ACE by the name in ink.  The Twins, to contend next year, would need a repeat by Hughes, a huge bounceback by Nolasco, and continued improvement by Gibson.  None of those things is a sure thing, but if it happened, then the starting pitching isn't bad at all. 

 

The offense was pretty good, although I would love to see more consistency (less zeroes and double digits runs and more 4-6 run games).  Their most compelling position player need is an OF who is a good fielder and an okay hitter.

[drjim]

Agreed, which is why I am a little disappointed in TR for doing it.  I guess some accountability is better than none, even if it eludes our GM for life.

 

I would say with high confidence he has one more year. If they improve he'll stay, if they flirt with 90 losses again he'll resign.

 

And I would say 4 years to clean up the mess following 2011 is appropriate, especially since this year showed some semblance of improvement.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I would say with high confidence he has one more year. If they improve he'll stay, if they flirt with 90 losses again he'll resign.

 

And I would say 4 years to clean up the mess following 2011 is appropriate, especially since this year showed some semblance of improvement.

Sounds reasonable, but why oust Gardy now, then?  Why not give him another year, and if it doesn't work, the new GM can pick a new manager and coaches too?