Don't look now, Twins have won 7 of last 12

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I just did the math.

 

Last 11 games: The starters are posting an ERA of 3.17. The K/BB ratio isn't through the roof, but that ERA though (I guess the correct analogy for a good ERA would be through the floor).

 

Does anyone have handy a correlation between starting pitching ERA and Win % ? I was going to make the assumption that the correlation is high but my father tought me better about making groundless assumptions

Looking back, ERA correlates pretty well with wins, of course.

 

Looking forward, K/BB rates are probably more predictive than past ERA, particularly a small sample of past ERA.

 

11 games of starter ERA is almost meaningless -- the last two weeks, there is an MLB team with a starter ERA below 2 and another above 6.  And those two teams are only 3 wins apart during that time (9-4 vs 6-7).  (Twins starters have the biggest ERA-FIP discrepancy during that time too.)

[RedBull34]

 

A 7-5 record is barely better than mediocre. 

Yea, if extrapolated out it's 94.5 wins so that clearly isn't true.

[Zachary]

 

Looking back, ERA correlates pretty well with wins, of course.

 

Looking forward, K/BB rates are probably more predictive than past ERA, particularly a small sample of past ERA.

 

11 games of starter ERA is almost meaningless -- the last two weeks, there is an MLB team with a starter ERA below 2 and another above 6.  And those two teams are only 3 wins apart during that time (9-4 vs 6-7).  (Twins starters have the biggest ERA-FIP discrepancy during that time too.)

I understand only 11 games of ERA isn't a very solid statistic. But at face value, the starters have pitched slightly better and they have a winning record. One could argue that you don't need to look past that.

 

I'm not completely schooled in all of the deeper statistics. When you say they had the biggest ERA-FIP discrepancy during that time, are you essentially saying that their ERA is further from the "truth"  than that of other teams?

[big dog]

 

Looks like the hitting is coming around a bit, but something isn't right when the, argueably, least important player, Nunez, and arguably the worst hitter on the team, Robinson, are leading the club in hitting.

 

Well, given that those two guys are hitting .533 and .355, aren't you setting the bar a little high?     I agree, though, having most everyone else below .240, yeah, that's a problem.

 

Not quibbling with your important points, either.  Otherwise I'd be Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House, shrieking "Remain calm! All is well!"  which clearly ain't the case.

[davidc3915]

With Santana struggling as much as he is both at the plate and at SS, and with little to no production in CF, any chance they return Santana to CF?  He had a really nice run there last season. 

 

I really like the way Mauer is swinging the bat as of late.  He's the 2015 version of Fear the Beard, hopefully!

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I understand only 11 games of ERA isn't a very solid statistic. But at face value, the starters have pitched slightly better and they have a winning record. One could argue that you don't need to look past that.

 

I'm not completely schooled in all of the deeper statistics. When you say they had the biggest ERA-FIP discrepancy during that time, are you essentially saying that their ERA is further from the "truth"  than that of other teams?

If you don't look past ERA and team/pitcher W-L, you are going to make a lot of mistakes.  Even the Twins knew that when they signed Phil Hughes, for example.

 

And yes, the Twins starter ERA is outperforming its FIP by the largest amount in baseball over the past two weeks.  (I wouldn't call FIP the "truth" but it's going to be better at predicting future run prevention than past ERA, especially over a small sample.)

[USAFChief]

If you don't look past ERA and team/pitcher W-L, you are going to make a lot of mistakes. Even the Twins knew that when they signed Phil Hughes, for example.

 

And yes, the Twins starter ERA is outperforming its FIP by the largest amount in baseball over the past two weeks. (I wouldn't call FIP the "truth" but it's going to be better at predicting future run prevention than past ERA, especially over a small sample.)

so SSS not withstanding, would that be an indication the defense hasn't been as bad as some would have led us to believe it was going to be? Or not as important?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Yea, if extrapolated out it's 94.5 wins so that clearly isn't true.

A 7-5 record over 12 games is very common in baseball.  Every team in MLB does it every season, even the 2003 Tigers.

 

"Mediocre" is often defined as average or undistinguished.

 

Hence, an isolated 7-5 record by itself is quite "mediocre" in differentiating, say, a 72 win team from even a .500 team.  (Thirteen consecutive 7-5 streaks, resulting in a 94 win season, would be an achievement well above mediocre.)

 

If they had won 12 in a row, that would certainly be more notable!  Like the Mets recent streak.  I hope to have that debate about our Twins in the near future.

[Mike Sixel]

 

so SSS not withstanding, would that be an indication the defense hasn't been as bad as some would have led us to believe it was going to be? Or not as important?

 

Uh, you can't just ignore SSS, and then try to reach a conclusion on what is likely a random set of outcomes.....that's why you collect data over months and years.....

[jimmer]

According to DRS, only 4 teams have been worse on defense for the season.  The difference between the team's FIP and ERA is only .11 and for just the rotation it's only .30 as of now.  The defense is very bad and has hurt us.  At least from what I've seen so far in the season.

[Hrbowski]

Like I said yesterday, the A's had a poor start to 2012 and still won the division even though the Rangers and Angels were better on paper.

[USAFChief]

Uh, you can't just ignore SSS, and then try to reach a conclusion on what is likely a random set of outcomes.....that's why you collect data over months and years.....

I didn't introduce FIP to this discussjon. Or does advanced data only apply when it supports a previously held opinion?

[JB_Iowa]

I'm just enjoying the ride.  The one thing the last week or so has given us is HOPE,

 

Those hopes may be dashed this week by facing the Tigers again.  But if the Twins can win 1 (or better yet 2 or 3) against the Tigers, those hopes will be rewarded.

 

Since none of us (to my knowledge) has the ability to determine what actually happens with this team, we can just hope they can continue to win at a pace in the vicinity of.500.  We can enjoy watching Molitor make moves.  We can enjoy seeing some of the younger players make progress (and groan when they don't).

 

Overall, we can just enjoy the ride.  And it is more enjoyable when it gets close to .500 rather than under .400.  At least if we are in the vicinity of .500, you can hope when you go to the ballpark that you'll get to see a victory that day.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

so SSS not withstanding, would that be an indication the defense hasn't been as bad as some would have led us to believe it was going to be? Or not as important?

Could be.  I think it's still very SSS to tell either way -- the above poster was talking about 11 games.  We probably had similar 11 game stretches the past few seasons.  (Reminds me when people favorably opined upon Chris Parmelee's last X games, conveniently ignoring all of the previous times when he performed similarly over X games.)  It's not tiny in an absolute sense, compared to 162 games, it just contains such a tiny subset of the teams, parks, and players we will encounter this season, it is easy to see how such a small sample can get skewed either way.

 

The range of AL team defensive efficiency ratings (percent of BIP converted into outs) is still over twice as large (.100) as the full season 2014 range (.040).  So there will still be some massive swings, hopefully the Twins can stick around the average and not settle at the bottom as they did in both 2013 and 2014.

[Willihammer]

Not to diminish the wins but that M's team we just played looked surprisingly mediocre IMO.

Now watch as they go on a 25-6 streak or something.

[USAFChief]

The Twins also finished April 1 game above .500 last year, if memory serves. So there's that.

[gunnarthor]

 

Not to diminish the wins but that M's team we just played looked surprisingly mediocre IMO.

Now watch as they go on a 25-6 streak or something.

I thought that too.  I think the teams aren't as good as they were 10 years ago.  Now I think there's a lot more parity and no "great" teams out there.  Washington, if healthy, could be. 

[h2oface]

 

...........Not being negative.  Being realistic based on the numbers.

I try to not look at the numbers at this point. That just leads to drinking. They are just horrible. But if one does, it is pretty amazing that they sit at 8-10 right now.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I didn't introduce FIP to this discussjon. Or does advanced data only apply when it supports a previously held opinion?

I am the guilty party who brought up FIP in this thread, but only in response to the poster favorably citing our starter ERA over the last 11 games.  It wasn't brought up in the context of defense, sorry if that wasn't clear.

[drivlikejehu]

The question isn't whether the Twins are playing well - they aren't - but whether they can play better. They are on pace to win 72 games and they are fortunate to have even won at that rate so far.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Not to diminish the wins but that M's team we just played looked surprisingly mediocre IMO.

Yeah, they're tied for the worst run differential in the AL.  (Unfortunately, with us.)

[JB_Iowa]

We have had streaks over the last few years where things have looked good.  I don't think you can extrapolate anything -- good or bad -- from the last few weeks.

 

It's been 18 games.  After 18 games in

 

2011, Twins were 6-12 and finished 63-99  (Longest winning streak: 8) (Longest losing streak: 11)

2012, Twins were 5-13 and finished 66-96  (Longest winning streak:  5) (Longest losing streak: 6)

2013, Twins were 9-9 and finished 66-96   (Longest winning streak: 5 ) (Longest losing streak: 10)

2014, Twins were 9-9 and finished 70-92  (Longest winning streak: 4 ) (Longest losing streak: 5)

 

 

All this says to me is that we need to see what kind of growth we see over the season.  Will the starting pitching hold up giving the BP time to coelesce?  Will the starting pitching receive a boost from the return of Santana?  Will the younger players grow or show a lot of regression?  Will "replacements" be called up?  Will TR make any trades?  What magic can Molitor, Allen, Bruno et. al. work with this roster?

 

All of this makes it an intriguing season.  18 games is too small a sample size to conclude anything but as long as we don't have too many West Coast night games, I'll enjoy seeing what happens.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I didn't introduce FIP to this discussjon. Or does advanced data only apply when it supports a previously held opinion?

 

neither did I.....and I answered your question, you can't ignore SSS and eliminate randomness.

 

None of any of this has anything to do with the nice streak their on......

[bird]

 

I didn't introduce FIP to this discussjon. Or does advanced data only apply when it supports a previously held opinion?

 

If the advanced data fails to support the previously-held opinion, then one must collect data for months or years until one of the following occurs:

 

1. The collected advanced data supports the previously-held opinion when one or more tiny portions of said collected advanced data can be cherry-picked to support said previously-held opinion; or

 

2. We've all forgotten why we cared about said previously-held opinion in the first place, let alone said advanced data.

 

 

Them's the rules Chief.

[Mike Sixel]

If I get a birdie two holes in a row, what does that tell you about my next 60 holes? Versus, if you look at my scores for the past year, what does that tell you?

 

this is my last post on this off topic discussion, but since birdwatcher posted....thought I'd point out why I think he's a bit off in his implications.

[Blake]

 

yup, thank goodness his turn in the lineup came up at that point.  The randomness of that being under the control of a player and and all.

The Twins won and it was by a hit by a guy they really couldn't have counted on the last couple of years. The Twins didn't roll over, like they have in the past. Baby steps. Of course, it didn't hurt that Seattle seemed to play like someone replaced their chewing gum with Xanax.

[Thrylos]

It is always good to win a series on the road against a team that is not playing up to its capabilities.

 

However, the real test for both the fortitude and the ability of this team, is what they do in this series at home against the division leader.

 

If they sweep, color me a believer...

[h2oface]

 

I like wins. I endorse this hotness.....

It is pretty sad when being 7-5 out of the last 12, and even 7-4 out of the last 11 games is considered "hotness".

[bird]

 

If I get a birdie two holes in a row, what does that tell you about my next 60 holes? Versus, if you look at my scores for the past year, what does that tell you?

 

this is my last post on this off topic discussion, but since birdwatcher posted....thought I'd point out why I think he's a bit off in his implications.

 

Actually, mike, my comments were not in response to anything you said.

 

 

I like to poke fun at the commonly-held notion that either small bits of data or years of data in and of themselves are credible. They can both have value, but as we see so often, data can become utter garbage, depending upon what we don't know, how it's used and manipulated, and what data is excluded. More importantly, the conclusions that are drawn from identical data can be all over the place based strictly on the concluder's world view.

 

As for your question, I for one probably can't tell you much at all about your golf game even with a history of your past 600 holes if I'm limited to a bunch of scores on a piece of paper, can I? I mean, are we talking Putt-Putt or Interlachen?

 

But anyway, nice golf game you have there.

[RedBull34]

 

A 7-5 record over 12 games is very common in baseball.  Every team in MLB does it every season, even the 2003 Tigers.

I had to look and they did indeed do this (although only once (smaller 6-3 streaks and a 5-1 to end the season were present though)).

 

More comically is that before their 7-5 stretch they went 0-7 and followed it up with a 0-8 stretch.

 

Man they were terrible.