SCHREIER: Minnesota Twins GM Terry Ryan: "We Want A Postseason"

[Willihammer]

Man those have to be some pretty long odds.  I wonder if that has ever happened before?  That is interesting.  The underdog lost in the WS though right?

No the Royals were favorites.

[drock2190]

My friends would laugh at me if I called Phil Hughes an "Ace."

 

Personally, you have to have more then one good year to be considered one. I wouldn't even call Kluber an "Ace" right now. Dominant pitcher? Yeah maybe but I want to see more. Same for Hughes even though hes not dominate (real good).

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I would hope he doesn't give a minute of thought to 6 five game series and 1 seven game series.  They tell you next to nothing and trying to make a cumulative case out of all seven is a fool's errand.  If they make the playoffs, they are good enough to win in the playoffs.

I am conceding the Ace argument.

 

We have two average expensive free agent pitchers over 30, and one pretty good guy in Hughes. Hoping Hughes can make this a trend. Maybe when and if the Twins make the playoffs one or two of those guys will get hot and pitch above their level, or at least out pitch the other guy.

 

However let me say that it's fine for us on the Internet to argue about pitching, playoff luck, etc.

 

But if your General Manager is coming out and making the mistaken claim that "the playoffs are mostly luck" or if that's the attitude of the organization, then that is a huge disappointment to me. You may be right -- it actually seems apparent he hasn't given a minute of thought to it.

[gunnarthor]

I am conceding the Ace argument.

 

We have two average expensive free agent pitchers over 30, and one pretty good guy in Hughes. Hoping Hughes can make this a trend. Maybe when and if the Twins make the playoffs one or two of those guys will get hot and pitch above their level, or at least out pitch the other guy.

 

However let me say that it's fine for us on the Internet to argue about pitching, playoff luck, etc.

 

But if your General Manager is coming out and making the mistaken claim that "the playoffs are mostly luck" or if that's the attitude of the organization, then that is a huge disappointment to me. You may be right -- it actually seems apparent he hasn't given a minute of thought to it.

I don't think there is a (relevant) thing to be learned in a 3 game series, be it in May or October.  The important thing is to look at why your team is successful (or not successful) over a full season.  

 

And you are the only person who has even referenced luck in this whole thread.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Well since it's not true, I'm not sure why he has to get it. Aces do not win World Series. Flukey small sample size runs do - and those happen in all sorts of whacky ways.

Another flukey coincidence that the team that believes the playoffs are all luck and small sample size (Minnesota and Oakland) almost always lose to the teams that believe they control their own destiny and can do something about it?

[Rosterman]

Your ACE might give you a bit better win chance to stay in the game (so, why not start Game One with the 5th best starter against the other team's ace and hope for a miracle?). But once you get to the competition of the World Series, it becomes total matchups, weather, player energy...any number of things can change a game in a moment. Your ACE can not be warmed up and has one bad inning, giving up two whole runs, while the other team's middle-of-the-road starter is near perfect in his own terms and only gives up two runs in five heated innings of throwing the ball, before turning it over to the bullpen, and depending on who comes out and faces whom, no one can predict the results.

 

And the so-called ACE can change with every season. Who was the Twins Ace in 1987? Anyone? Was Morris the true ACE, or just the guy who did get it done when it needed to be done in 1991? Out of all the teams last year, how many pitchers are the so-called ACE #1 starter and where did they fall in this category three years ago and three years hence?

[scottz]

Who was the Twins Ace in 1987? Anyone? 

 

Ummmmmm. Frank Viola?

[Lonestar]

Another flukey coincidence that the team that believes the playoffs are all luck and small sample size (Minnesota and Oakland) almost always lose to the teams that believe they control their own destiny and can do something about it?

Let's see.  The Athletics think it's all luck, yet they traded for two aces, giving up Cespedes and Addison Russell in the process.  At the time, they had the best record and Pythagorean whatever in baseball.

 

The Tigers believe in controlling their destiny and traded for another ace. 

 

Neither made it to the Series.

[TheLeviathan]

Good post, two small points.  Ryan wasn't GM in 2010 and Smith did offer Ramos and Hicks for Lee.  Seattle took the Rangers offer.

 

Just to further this point, Seattle only turned it down after Ramos got hurt.  Man that was a franchise changing injury.

[Mike Sixel]

I would hope TR wants to be in the post season...

[TheLeviathan]

Another flukey coincidence that the team that believes the playoffs are all luck and small sample size (Minnesota and Oakland) almost always lose to the teams that believe they control their own destiny and can do something about it?

 

Even if that was true, the answer is "yes, it is a flukey coincidence".

 

Also, if all you had to do was field aces to win the World Series, please explain to me how Detroit consistently has lost to inferior pitching staffs year after year?

 

The only truth in the "you have to have an ace!" logic is that, yes, it's better to have elite players than not.  But that goes for any position and is really just stating the obvious.  Anything more than that is factually inaccurate.

[Kwak]

Let's see.  The Athletics think it's all luck, yet they traded for two aces, giving up Cespedes and Addison Russell in the process.  At the time, they had the best record and Pythagorean whatever in baseball.

 

The Tigers believe in controlling their destiny and traded for another ace. 

 

Neither made it to the Series.

The Dodgers had (arguably) the best pitcher in BB and they didn't make the WS either.  Are you implying that having "an Ace " is a mistake?  Consider, that many teams have one (or more) of these "Aces"--yet there will be only one champion.  Logically, teams should strive to have the best players in order to maximize the probability of success--but in the end there is only one winner.

[Lonestar]

The Dodgers had (arguably) the best pitcher in BB and they didn't make the WS either.  Are you implying that having "an Ace " is a mistake?  Consider, that many teams have one (or more) of these "Aces"--yet there will be only one champion.  Logically, teams should strive to have the best players in order to maximize the probability of success--but in the end there is only one winner.

No, we all want the best players in order to maximize the probability of success.  But you have to add context.  Where is your team on the win curve?  What is your payroll situation like this year, next year, for the next five years?  How much of your payroll can you give one player?  What does farm system look like?

 

I will say it would be a mistake for the Twins to pay as much as it would take for the decline years of Lester and Scherzer.

 

I don't think the Twins will contend in 2015.  Who knows, they might in 2016, in which case a Lester or Samardzija type trade might make sense, especially with the farm system we have.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I don't think there is a (relevant) thing to be learned in a 3 game series, be it in May or October.  The important thing is to look at why your team is successful (or not successful) over a full season.  

 

And you are the only person who has even referenced luck in this whole thread.

so "flukey" and "small sample size" suddenly don't equate to luck? Since when is an irrelevant outcome, AKA outlier, not luck? If you are going to pick and choose your sample, own it. If better quality talent only gets you to the playoffs but isn't enough to win a World Series, what is? A statistically irrelevant small sampling of outlier performances?

[Brandon]

In the playoffs it helps to have the best players at as many positions as possible Especially Pitcher.  While that gives you an edge it doesn't guarantee victory.  There are so many examples where the lower talented team won 45% of the time which on a micro level works too.

 

Note:  86% of all stats used to back up a point are made up on the spot.  but if someone goes back and checks this is probably not far from the truth as there are numerous examples.  the 87 Twins and the 2006 St Louis Cardinals are the 2 biggest ones.  the Pirates in 1951, the Giants, in 2014, the Marlins in 2003 were a wild card team, whoever played against the Braves in the 90's had an inferior pitching staff as they had 3 aces and only 1 World Series Victory. 

[benji21]

Would you call James Shields an ace?  Yet the Royals made the World Series and came close to winning it all.

 

Well since it's not true, I'm not sure why he has to get it.  Aces do not win World Series.  Flukey small sample size runs do - and those happen in all sorts of whacky ways.

 

Hi, my name is Madison Bumgartner, it's really nice to meet you.

 

Yes, you need an ace to win in the MLB.  I would call James Shields an ace and I would do the same of Yordano Ventura.  Those two are some damn fine pitchers.  The Giants just road their ace to the World Series and didn't he pitch in like 3+ games in it?  I may not be remembering correctly but I probably am.

To speak to Johan, yeah he was the best, but you can't just have crap behind him and an incomplete lineup.  If properly constructed, a team anchored behind him could definitely win the WS.  It's a pretty weak argument to say that 'well we had the best pitcher in the game and didn't wind the WS' and when I say pretty weak I actually mean very weak.  You need an ace, but not only an ace.

[benji21]

That's just not true.  Every year teams get beat by teams with inferior pitching staffs.  Is it better to have an elite pitcher than not?  Sure, of course.  Just like it's better to have an elite SS than not.

 

But there is no correlation with that and winning World Series. 

Do you have any evidence to back that up or is that just postulating?  True or not, it's a helluva statement to just say.  If one had the desire, I think Grantland may have actually done some work on the correlation between ace caliber pitching and winning the WS.

 

Edit:

Here is some good reading on the topic:

 

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/mlb-playoff-myths-to-ignore/

 

The paragraph that starts with "it helps to have good pitching"

He is saying that teams that make and win in the playoffs have superior pitching and that the differences in staff quality is compressed in the playoffs; everyone has aces and great staffs.

 

http://grantland.com/features/mlb-detroit-tigers-oakland-as-rotations/

 

The paragraph that starts with "so why doesn't the quality"

Here he is saying that a playoff team that doesn't have a superior starting staff succeeds in the playoffs because it is highly likely that they excel in another area, ie the Royals and their bullpen/defense.

[Riverbrian]

Of course having an Ace is critical to playoff success. But... A few TD'ers are overlooking the timing of that ace.

 

Clayton Kershaw is an Ace in every sense of the word. October 3 and October 7 he was not Ace Like.

 

I remember watching Zito shutdown the Tigers in 2012. A Very Ace like performance from Zito while Verlander failed.

 

Pablo Sandoval signed a big contract with Boston...He probably got more money then he would have gotten because of his post season success... However... Can any of you guarantee that Pablo won't go for 0-10 or 1-20 the next time he is in the playoffs. I don't think you can... Playoff success will always be about timing... Being hot at the right time... Daniel Descalso can carry you in the playoffs and be cut the next year.

 

Yes by all means... Go get that Ace... But... Please predict who is going to be an Ace in October while you do it.

[TheLeviathan]

Do you have any evidence to back that up or is that just postulating?  

 

Your article backs up exactly what I've been saying, here is the money quote:

 

Thus far, we’ve failed to prove that pitching (particularly elite pitching) wins championships, but more data might reveal some modest effect.

 

 

So what I'm saying is backed up by data.  The truth is most of the myths about success in the postseason are bunk and the reason for that is because those myths exist to try and explain how you can purposely win a randomly timed small sample size with consistency.  Frankly - winning small samples is pretty dependent on one thing most of all: luck. 

[Riverbrian]

For those holding up Madison Bumgarner and going " see what an Ace can do".

 

Please keep in mind that Madison was more than a Ace in the playoffs. He was 3 Aces and 2 Kings.

 

He threw 52 innings with an ERA of 1.03 and a WHIP of 0.65.

 

Something he did not do in the 2012 playoffs or during any 52 inning stretch during the 2013 or 2014 regular seasons.

 

They are singing songs about Bumgarner now because he had the fortune to get hotter then he's ever been in his life... at.. the... right... time.

 

Getting to the playoffs is the hard part... Once you do that... Get Hot!!! I'm talking Moustakas (5 homers in 52 AB) Hot.

[brvama]

Riverbrian has it pegged We often fail to remember that while these are professional ball players, they are also human. Subject to the ebb and flow of human inconsistency. The elite sometime will play under their capability and others will play over their head. It's not luck but timing to win it all.

 

So, while you want to build the best team possible, given all the variables, the goal has to be to build a team worthy of the playoffs and then hope that they play their best in the post season. If it was so easy as to just acquire the best talent to win the WS, then wouldn't we just have champions from the Yankees, Red Sox,or Dodgers.

 

And regarding aces, how many times had Felix won the WS in Seattle. Aces are good but their are 24 other players that make up the team. Build the team to get there first, then let the chips fall where they may, IMO.

[Riverbrian]

Your article backs up exactly what I've been saying, here is the money quote:

 

 

 

So what I'm saying is backed up by data.  The truth is most of the myths about success in the postseason are bunk and the reason for that is because those myths exist to try and explain how you can purposely win a randomly timed small sample size with consistency.  Frankly - winning small samples is pretty dependent on one thing most of all: luck.

 

I agree Levi...

 

I think of it this way.... You have to ignore a ton of inconsistency to latch on to a grain of inconsistency that looks like consistency.

[cmb0252]

Do you need an ace to win the WS? No.

Do you need an elite QB to win the super bowl? No.

Do you need an elite goalie to win the cup? No.

Do you need a top 5 star to win an NBA championship? No.

Would you rather have one than not have one? Heck yeah!

 

Playoffs are fluky. Momentum can be more important than talent but that doesn't mean a team shouldn't try to acquire the best players possible. People can point at X series vs Y series vs Z series all they want but in the end there is not enough data to prove anything. In the end having more talent than the other team never hurts.

[benji21]

Your article backs up exactly what I've been saying, here is the money quote:

 

 

So what I'm saying is backed up by data. The truth is most of the myths about success in the postseason are bunk and the reason for that is because those myths exist to try and explain how you can purposely win a randomly timed small sample size with consistency. Frankly - winning small samples is pretty dependent on one thing most of all: luck.

The article does not exactly back you up. In your quoted section it states that its inconclusive. Part of the reason Detroit and Verlander, etc. Lose is because all the playoff teams have their own Verlanders to trot out. If they dont, they may have a huge offense or crazy D or whatever and if theyre a TR constructed team they get steamrolled. The titular ace gives you the best shot on a given night, however, part of the trouble with all the predictive models is the timing and streaks so common in sss/baseball. And absolutely luck is involved, youd have to be silly not to give luck its due but through it all, can you really tell me you'd say no thanks Scherzer, waino, Clemmons in the day, randy Johnson et al in favor of Kyle Gibson or Duensing in a given playoff game? I can't do that, give me an ace.

[TheLeviathan]

The article does not exactly back you up. In your quoted section it states that its inconclusive. Part of the reason Detroit and Verlander, etc. Lose is because all the playoff teams have their own Verlanders to trot out. If they dont, they may have a huge offense or crazy D or whatever and if theyre a TR constructed team they get steamrolled. The titular ace gives you the best shot on a given night, however, part of the trouble with all the predictive models is the timing and streaks so common in sss/baseball. And absolutely luck is involved, youd have to be silly not to give luck its due but through it all, can you really tell me you'd say no thanks Scherzer, waino, Clemmons in the day, randy Johnson et al in favor of Kyle Gibson or Duensing in a given playoff game? I can't do that, give me an ace.

 

Except, in this case, inconclusive does back me up.  The assertion is that you "need" an ace to win the World Series.  Or that that is the magic ingredient.  Inconclusive data means that opinion is not correct, it's not well-founded.  I reject that notion precisely because the data suggests it's wildly overblown and not nearly as important as it is made out to be.  

 

Again, your last two lines made the point I made earlier - all you're really saying is that you prefer having elite talent over not having it.  Well, yeah, I think we can all agree to that.  But having an elite pitcher is a guarantee of nothing and a requirement to win nothing.  So you're mistaking my argument to suggest I believe we shouldn't have an ace.  I'd love for us to trade for, sign, or develop an ace.  What I reject is the notion that getting one is the most necessary component of winning a title.  You'll note we had one of these for most of our playoff failures and we barely managed to win games much less titles.  That doesn't mean the problem was Johan Santana, it just means the notion that having someone like him is the solution to playoff struggles is preposterous.

 

The only real solution to playoff struggles is having a whole lot better luck to go with as many elite talents as you can muster together.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'm conceding the Ace argument because it's way too subjective. Some people have called Rick Porcello an ace, while others are rationing out only 10 aces across baseball. The source of this whole argument goes back to the Santana signing for me. Santana is probably not as good as Hughes, and in no fantasy world would I take Hughes over Madison Bumgarner, playoffs or regular season, this year or any year. I'd have liked to see Meyer hit the ground running this year AND May hit the ground running. Meyer might develop into a dominant guy for a fraction of the price of Santana, and May might be able to give us Santana's level of performance, again for a fraction of the cost. Your two prize trade acquisitions are both ready to roll this year. That's why I was confused about Santana signing. As the link in the OP said, depth is a short term positive aspect of it. I suppose it's better than the Doumit/Correia/Suzuki/Hunter types of signings he was becoming famous for.

 

Ryan can probably be excused for the "we don't need no ace" comment, as he gives 100's of interviews a year, and even that is harder than it sounds. But his moves really look to me to be random transactions sometimes without a broader vision. I can only assume Pohlad had a part in this.

[jokin]

 

 

But his moves really look to me to be random transactions sometimes without a broader vision. I can only assume Pohlad had a part in this.

 

This was a good post, but I'm not sure about the last sentence.  According to Ryan's (and presumably Pohald's) broader vision, signing Santana looks to be just a carryover of unfinished business from last offseason..... ie, some more  "Stop-the-bleeding," innings-eating, veteran leadership for the young arms that will be (very) gradually working their way into the rotation, as well as a veteran leadership figure in the OF for all of the young colts already here or soon arriving on the scene.

[tobi0040]

This was a good post, but I'm not sure about the last sentence.  According to Ryan's (and presumably Pohald's) broader vision, signing Santana looks to be just a carryover of unfinished business from last offseason..... ie, some more  "Stop-the-bleeding," innings-eating, veteran leadership for the young arms that will be (very) gradually working their way into the rotation, as well as a veteran leadership figure in the OF for all of the young colts already here or soon arriving on the scene.

 

I think you are selling Ervin a little short here.  I had him as the 4th best pitcher on the free agent market, behind Max, Shields, and Lester.  Some guys may have more upside like Masterson, Anderson, etc. but they are not nearly as consistent as Ervin has been.

 

True, he is a veteran, he eats innings, he loves baseball, can mentor guys, etc.  But he is by my count our second best pitcher as well.  This was not a Torii Hunter signing.

[jokin]

I think you are selling Ervin a little short here.  I had him as the 4th best pitcher on the free agent market, behind Max, Shields, and Lester.  Some guys may have more upside like Masterson, Anderson, etc. but they are not nearly as consistent as Ervin has been.

 

True, he is a veteran, he eats innings, he loves baseball, can mentor guys, etc.  But he is by my count our second best pitcher as well.  This was not a Torii Hunter signing.

 

My post was not so much a qualitative judgement on Santana, as more a confirmation that Ryan does have a "broader vision" that he's trying to implement. There's really no reason that becoming our second best pitcher and fulfilling the other parts of the transaction Ryan is seeking should be mutually exclusive (there's a fighting chance that Torii Hunter will be our best outfielder in 2015). 

[Dman]

Although my definition of ace is different I can concede that the numbers do not back up my assumptions that you need an ACE to win a world series.  Looking at Ryan's comment again I can see that I likely put words in his mouth when I heard the words solid rotation and not needing an ace.  I think I am hyper sensitive to pitching talk having witnessed the last several years or poor pitching so any talk of average pitching strikes a nerve.  

 

Yep get to the payoffs get hot and win it all.  I can get behind that.  Just don;t try to sell me on Pelfrey and Corriea or some other reclamation project to get us there.  I am really tired of having one of the worst pitching staffs in baseball.