Schoenfield releases his 2015 rankings predictions for 30-25.

[jokin]

There could be many other factors other than schedule.  Could be that he feels teams in the division got much better or were already much better.  

 

That's my main point, the "schedule" means playing all of these teams 19 times within the division, all or most of whom have improved more, on paper anyway, and are starting from a much higher base than the Twins have/will.

 

I can get on board an argument that breaks the projected value of each roster down mathematically and sabremetrically, not just- "the Twins OF is going to suck."  We've all been there and done that.

[jimmer]

Sounds like you're interpreting some originally pretty faulty, and poorly disseminated logic, as well as lazy and incomplete conclusions, from Mr. Schoenfeld.  Your defense of him was much better than Schoenfeld's defense of himself- no "hopefullys in Schoenfeld's analysis.  You end up in your defense of him with the same circular logic, concluding that 2014 was, in fact, their "peak" and quite possibly an outlier-  a lot of us don't see it that way.  

 

Again, somebody check Schoenfeld's track record for his predictive abilities.

I didn't say Dozier and Plouffe's 2014 was an outlier, nor do I think that. I think it's their peak. I don't see them doing better.  And I thought that before I even read the article. I didn't need his article to tell me that I think that is as good as those two are going to get (and that is very good, BTW). And since this is the first time they've reached this point of overall value, that it's their peak and not their plateau. In fact, ZIPs projects both to come down a bit so that system thinks it was an outlier and it was the best projection system out there for 2014.

 

I also predict them to finish last and with a poor record for many of the same reasons he put and more. He didn't convince me. I didn't need convincing.

 

And I don't think that just because you and others don't agree with someone that automatically makes their logic faulty or poorly disseminated logic. 

[jimmer]

That's my main point, the "schedule" means playing all of these teams 19 times within the division, all or most of whom have improved more, on paper anyway, and are starting from a much higher base than the Twins have/will.

 

I can get on board an argument that breaks the projected value of each roster down mathematically and sabremetrically, not just- "the Twins OF is going to suck."  We've all been there and done that.

Schedule also includes the NL Central. ZIPs projects (not predicts) 75 wins. 27th out of 30. I talked to the guy who creates that and he made sure to explain that projections aren't predictions because projections are based on what players will likely do and he knows player under and over perform their projections and random sequencing affects things as well.

[jokin]

Chicago scares me, 

 

No doubt, decisive action was taken on the South Side- who knew they would likely be on a faster return to relevancy than the Twins (in 2012 the Sox finished 3 games behind Detroit at 85-77, blew up the team, and now here they are, seemingly lapping the Twins?).  Throw out the exception of 2012, the Twins have actually dominated the Whities since 2008-> 65-47, even done well against them in the other three 90-plus loss seasons.  If the Twins go 4-14 against the Sox in 2015 as they did in 2012, it's going to be awful hard to make up all of those 5-6 extra losses elsewhere.

[jokin]

Schedule also includes the NL Central. ZIPs projects (not predicts) 75 wins. 27th out of 30. I talked to the guy who creates that and he made sure to explain that projections aren't predictions because projections are based on what players will likely do and he knows player under and over perform their projections and random sequencing affects things as well.

 

As I stated previously, there is a strong case to made that, top-to-bottom, the NL Central  is arguably the best division in baseball. Perhaps the Twins won't have as many opportunities to steal some wins like they had in 2014 with 3 clearly inferior teams from the NL West- Col/SD/AZ.

[JB_Iowa]

If anyone out there is like me then I don't think I can take another year of being 27th.  I am looking for a 18 to 22 finish.  With built up hope for 2016.  Unfortunately I could see us falling to 27th as we typically swoon at the half way point.  

 

So I am putting the blinders on and ignoring that we could finish that low.  I am going to think happy thoughts about making it to 500 or close to that because that is the only way I can follow this team.

 

Spring is for optimism.  There will be plenty of time for pessimism later on if need be.

 

But for now, you gotta believe.

[gunnarthor]

Schedule also includes the NL Central. ZIPs projects (not predicts) 75 wins. 27th out of 30. I talked to the guy who creates that and he made sure to explain that projections aren't predictions because projections are based on what players will likely do and he knows player under and over perform their projections and random sequencing affects things as well.

You seem to be putting a lot more faith in projected standings than you probably should.  It's been a long time since I read about them, and maybe they've improved, but they aren't really that great.  Usually someone will defend it by saying it got the standings right with 95% accuracy or some such.  But that ignores that mostly everyone can successfully predict standings to a certain successful amount so their final percentage isn't that impressive. 

 

The last time I cared about this enough was in the mid-2000s when the Twins were constantly projected to finish below Chicago (and others).  It irked me but I read something on Baseball Analysts that basically said to take projected standings with a huge grain of salt and haven't really cared about ZIPS and others since. 

 

I randomly looked at PETCOA projections for one year and found the 2011 AL East and AL central. The projections were:

Boston 92     

NYY 91        

Rays 84      

Balt 82

Tor 76

 

The final standings were:

NYY - 97 (off by 6)

Rays - 91 (off by 7)

Boston - 90 (off by 1)

Tor - 81 (off by 5)

Balt - 69 (off by 13)

 

For the Central is was

Det - 83

MN - 83

CHI - 82

Cle - 74

KC - 68

 

And the final standings were:

Det - 95 (off by 12)

Cle - 80 (off by 6)

Chi - 79 (off by 3)

KC - 71 (off by 3)

MN - 63 (off by 20)

 

So that's about a 7 game error and big misses in final standing order.  My guess is that you'll see that that is pretty common for most projection systems. 

[jimmer]

You seem to be putting a lot more faith in projected standings than you probably should.  

I'm not putting too much faith in anything really, I'm just talking about/posting what the projections/predictions that I've seen are saying.  Prospect rankings are the same thing, so many inaccuracies (like Cano being the 7th best Yankee Prospect in early 2005), yet so many put so much faith in those around here.  I'm guessing because they are so positive for us right now.  And, at the same time, they don't agree the Astros have a top farm system.  So praise the people as insightful for saying the Twins farm system is so good, but then when they say the Astros have a top notch farm system, the same people are way out of touch.

 

I'm saying I understand and can see why people and projection systems are projecting us the way they are.  I'm not at all basing my own predictions based on what any of them are saying, but a lot of the reasoning that I have read I already thought before I read it so I agree with.

 

For example, I don't think we'll only win 68 (like David predicts), but I also don't think we'll win 75 (like ZIPs projects).  I look at the talent on the teams and, IMO, it tells me we'll be last in the division and battling for the worst record in the AL.

 

In the end, all these prospect rankings and projections for players and team records are just a fun thing to debate, or should be.

[Squirrel]

 

In the end, all these prospect rankings and projections for players and team records are just a fun thing to debate, or should be.

Yes, they should be.  I'm not one for predictions; it's basically one person's 'educated' guess, or another's 'intuition' or another's 'hope' or another's 'doom.'  Maybe one's methodology might be deemed more sound than another's, that's part of what makes it interesting, how each comes to their own conclusions, but it still doesn't make any one prediction any more 'right' or 'wrong,' not when ST hasn't even yet begun, let alone the actual season.  But it is fun to theorize and hope and guess.  I see no reason for the need to call anyone out for being overly optimistic at this stage in the game; nor calling anyone out for being overly pessimistic, either.  Just disagree and say why you do, whether or not you are hopeful or hopeless.

[Squirrel]

But I should add, I'm of the more hopeful variety ... until I'm slapped in the face with hopelessness.  

 

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

[TheLeviathan]

I remember Vegas coming in around 72 and we heard a lot of complaining about what an offensive number that was as well.  And we finished with an under.  I feel like a lot of this thread just echos this tendency we have to take national opinions as some kind of affront to our fandom. 

 

There is room for this team's offense to regress and it may regress way more than any of us feel comfortable admitting.  There is a really, really wide swing of reasonable expectations for this offense ranging from maintaining 5th-ish to being dreadful.

 

The pitching was bad and most teams are not fielding elite corner outfielders, but most teams also don't run out a pitching staff that specializes in fly-balls either.  The problem isn't just the bad defenders, it's that the bad defenders play the least ideal positions possible for this particular pitching staff.

 

Personally I see the team around 75 wins based on a bounceback from Arcia, Mauer, and Nolasco.  But I have some serious, serious concerns about some spots on this team.  Most notably the bullpen and the typically hard adjustment for second year players.

[jokin]

 

 

I randomly looked at PETCOA projections for one year and found the 2011 AL East and AL central. The projections were:

Boston 92     

NYY 91        

Rays 84      

Balt 82

Tor 76

 

The final standings were:

NYY - 97 (off by 6)

Rays - 91 (off by 7)

Boston - 90 (off by 1)

Tor - 81 (off by 5)

Balt - 69 (off by 13)

 

For the Central is was

Det - 83

MN - 83

CHI - 82

Cle - 74

KC - 68

 

And the final standings were:

Det - 95 (off by 12)

Cle - 80 (off by 6)

Chi - 79 (off by 3)

KC - 71 (off by 3)

MN - 63 (off by 20)

 

So that's about a 7 game error and big misses in final standing order.  My guess is that you'll see that that is pretty common for most projection systems. 

PECOTA has the Twins repeating their 70 win total in 2015 from last season, and they project no "bad" teams, so the Twins are tied with Philly for 29th place in the BP system. There are always a small handful of teams who finish in the 60s or even the 50s, so the value of a 29th place prediction seems pretty diluted. 

 

Schoenfeld's predictions/projections for last season weren't exactly stellar, either.  Of the 30 MLB teams, Schoenfeld only had 14 who he predicted "correctly", within a 5-win margin.  That's only a 46.7% "accuracy" rate.   And he was completely off the mark on close to the same number of teams- 12 of 30 teams- to be exact- by a 9 win or better discrepancy. This is near dartboard territory.  (He low-balled the Twins in 2014 similarly to this year- 67 wins, in the end, so, off by 3, he has a pretty good feel for the general vicinity of where the Twins should reside, just a little too negative, and certainly well below the Pythag- which was 75 [& coincidentally, that's right at the midpoint of my current prediction range and likely near this year's Pythag #]).

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/44158/ranking-the-teams-6-through-1

[jokin]

 

Personally I see the team around 75 wins based on a bounceback from Arcia, Mauer, and Nolasco.  But I have some serious, serious concerns about some spots on this team.  Most notably the bullpen and the typically hard adjustment for second year players.

 

- 75 seems about right for this team.... I'm @ 73-77 pending the final opening day roster.  

- Good bets can be made on the "over" for projections of all three of the players you mentioned, plus Pinto.

- The bullpen has a new pitching coach with a slew of potential options that any one of whom could step up big, from multiple rabbit hole sources- solid veterans, reclamations and bounce-backs, unsung rookies, top prospects.  Ryan has a solid history of putting a solid pen together with chicken wire, no reason that can't continue in his quantity over quality theory.

- The sophomore jinx applies to whom?  Two guys?  Santana and Vargas- and the positions they might fill have some pretty decent potential alternatives, especially if one or more of the top prospects break out of the gate in a big way.

[jokin]

I remember Vegas coming in around 72 and we heard a lot of complaining about what an offensive number that was as well.  And we finished with an under.  I feel like a lot of this thread just echos this tendency we have to take national opinions as some kind of affront to our fandom. 

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, while a lot of guys stepped up to do "their patriotic duty" and make a statement about their Vegas "over' bet (I think the Vegas number at the time was actually 71 or 70.5?  PECOTA was 71, Business Insider also reported that the Vegas # was @ 70.5   http://www.businessinsider.com/mlb-power-rankings-spring-training-2014-2#27-minnesota-twins-66-wins-last-year-27 ), but I seem to remember a decent consensus forming on TD in the low 70s. (eg,  I was 70-74 and it just seemed to me a lot of guys were also in that ballpark).

[USAFChief]

Correct me if I'm wrong, while a lot of guys stepped up to do "their patriotic duty" and make a statement about their Vegas "over' bet (I think the Vegas number at the time was actually 71 or 70.5?  PECOTA was 71, Business Insider also reported that the Vegas # was @ 70.5   http://www.businessinsider.com/mlb-power-rankings-spring-training-2014-2#27-minnesota-twins-66-wins-last-year-27 ), but I seem to remember a decent consensus forming on TD in the low 70s. (eg,  I was 70-74 and it just seemed to me a lot of guys were also in that ballpark).

In last year's TD over/under contest, the Twins were at 70.5. More people took the over than the under.

 

But none of us picked well enough to do much braggin'. Predicting baseball is hard.

[jokin]

 

And I don't think that just because you and others don't agree with someone that automatically makes their logic faulty or poorly disseminated logic. 

 

I think his methodology has been pretty well demonstrated in this thread to be some pretty thin gruel, and without demonstrating a whole lot of previous predictive acumen in 2014.  You made a better case, and a more cogently written case, for the lowball number than Schoenfeld did himself.

[jimmer]

I think his methodology has been pretty well demonstrated in this thread to be some pretty thin gruel, and without demonstrating a whole lot of previous predictive acumen in 2014.  You made a better case, and a more cogently written case, for the lowball number than Schoenfeld did himself.

While I genuinely appreciate the compliment, in fairness, I had the advantage of being able to chat back and forth and address concerns.  He is writing relatively short blurbs about 30 teams and can't clarify/explain/defend his comments with the readers.  BTW, he has a weekly chat on ESPN if you'd like to discuss his predictions with him.

[ashbury]

But none of us picked well enough to do much braggin'.

I am not givin' back my prize, if that is what you are hintin' at.

 

_{^{/ and I am not disputin' Chief's actual point}}

[jokin]

 

While I genuinely appreciate the compliment, in fairness, I had the advantage of being able to chat back and forth and address concerns.  He is writing relatively short blurbs about 30 teams and can't clarify/explain/defend his comments with the readers.  BTW, he has a weekly chat on ESPN if you'd like to discuss his predictions with him.

 

The difference is Schoenfeld is getting paid to write this stuff, and as a professional writer, succintly disseminate.  He failed to persuade, and in some instances his analysis and conclusions are either superficially lazy, poorly fleshed out, just plain wrongly concluded... or some combination of all of the above.  (Just look at his 2014 predictions as an example).

[Paul Pleiss]

I think what he's written makes quite a bit of sense. I don't think he's saying, at all, that it's just Santana's regression that will hurt the offense.  He's just the main example. I don't expect them to be good at all.  I'd be happy if we managed 75 wins.

 75 wins puts this team on track for a legit shot at .500 in 2016, which is somethign I'd be quite happy with. Not ecstatic, but happy. Trending in the right direction.