Are you ready to change your win prediction?

Brock Beauchamp · May 20, 2015

Extreme "clutchness" I think.

Last year the team was below average at scoring runners from 3rd with less than two outs (46% IIRC). This year they're scoring them at a ~60% clip which is among the best in baseball.

They're batting .743 with men on and .666 with bases empty.

.1.062 with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 2 outs.

.793 with RISP, compared to .700 overall.

The Cardinals coasted on great numbers with RISP well into June last year. Looks like maybe the Twins number came up this year (finally).

Those aren't quite as extreme as they look at first glance. People seem to think that because "clutchness" doesn't exist, that means RISP stats should align with bases empty stats. They don't.

Bad pitchers put more men on base. Bad pitchers give up more hits and a higher OPS. RISP, Men On, etc. should generally have higher offensive numbers than bases empty situations.

Here are the 2015 American League splits thus far:

Bases Empty OPS: .698

Men On OPS: .740

RISP OPS: .752

The NL has generally similar numbers, though RISP is slightly lower than Men On. Statistical noise. The Twins are outperforming the league averages but not by an insane amount.

Willihammer · May 20, 2015

Those aren't quite as extreme as they look at first glance. People seem to think that because "clutchness" doesn't exist, that means RISP stats should align with bases empty stats. They don't.

Bad pitchers put more men on base. Bad pitchers give up more hits and a higher OPS. RISP, Men On, etc. should generally have higher offensive numbers than bases empty situations.

Here are the 2015 American League splits thus far:

Bases Empty OPS: .698
Men On OPS: .740
RISP OPS: .752

The NL has generally similar numbers, though RISP is slightly lower than Men On. Statistical noise. The Twins are outperforming the league averages but not by an insane amount.

I'd add that when you consider the guys with some ceiling left - Santana, Arcia, Mauer, Vargas, possibly Escobar it seems very possible that they keep scoring all year. Only Dozier is really batting over his head right now.

ashbury · May 20, 2015

The Twins are outperforming the league [RISP] averages but not by an insane amount.

All the factors mentioned in the past few posts are non-insane, but all happen to be in one same direction, and taken together explain the good W-L adequately for (at least) my purposes.

And I for one am happy if the RNG gods are smiling on us for once, because I do believe our overall luck has been below par for several years now.

And as Willihammer points out in the meantime, there is upside for the fundamental OPS numbers so that we could see continued good run production by that means and few would even notice. Ditto on the run-prevention side if a couple of starters produce like we think they can - Trevor May being one pitch away from a stellar start, etc.

Riverbrian · May 20, 2015

Season Predictions... I'm still not comfortable yet. I want to see how they handle a losing spell.

All teams have losing spells and I want to see how they handle it.

Right now... I'll just say that I'm loving what they are doing right now and it's fun to be optimistic this late in the season.

As for Plouffe... I'm telling the world that I am officially off of his back.

Two Years ago... I didn't like his defensive engagement and the out of zone chasing at the plate.

Last year and what I've seen this year... Plouffe has fixed many problems and I now consider him a defensive plus for the team with enough bat to be a plus as well. He's helping us win games.

You won't hear me complain about Plouffe anymore. Unless he goes back to the slacking off like he did a couple of years ago.

formerly33 · May 20, 2015

Season Predictions... I'm still not comfortable yet. I want to see how they handle a losing spell.

All teams have losing spells and I want to see how they handle it.

We already did have a losing spell, and we handled it well, too. In the past month alone we have raised our record by nearly .200. So if we get ourselves into a similar losing spell (i.e. 1-6) later on this season, well, if we can come back to raise our record by .200 more, it'll be well worth it.

laloesch · May 20, 2015

I think the Twins are a hard team to project. Are they under-performing or over-achieving? Will the real Ricky Nolasco please stand up?

Here's a clue from Twins management: Vargas got demoted in spite of his solid stats in May. The message I read was, "Good enough is not going to cut it". Vargas has the potential to be one of the top RBI guys in the game. He needs to get his groove back.

The next clue, I feel, will be what they do with Stauffer. He can't get anyone out in AAA. If the Twins bring him back up, you can kiss .500 good-bye. If they cut him, I'm drinking the Kool Aid and upping my guesstimate to 85 wins.

I would like to say 85 wins, but given the front office is making bone headed decisions again, I'm leaning towards 75.

The Vargas demotion in lieu of Nunez coming off the DL is brutal. Why would they do this? Vargas is coming out of a slump and had raised his BA to .248. Why send him to AAA against inferior pitching?

So here we go again. A bench composed of junk: Nunez, Herrmann, Robinson and Bernier. Zero power. Yuck!

It also appears that Mauer and Santana are heading into slumps again which will drag down the team in the long run. Oh...by the way this is the long term version of Mauer your seeing. Slow bat speed, no power, high strikeout totals, lots of GIDP's, no extra base hits and mediocre batting average. Ridiculous for a guy getting paid 20+ million a year.

Other moves that will cost the team down the road is the return of Stauffer from the DL and the continued use of Duensing who is quite frankly ineffective. Moves like this will be the difference between 75 wins and 85 wins. The question is when are the TWins going to cut bait with the garbage and go with the young talent.

JB_Iowa · May 20, 2015

I would like to say 85 wins, but given the front office is making bone headed decisions again, I'm leaning towards 75.

Here's the thing: they may seem like boneheaded decisions to you and others.

But for the most part they seem to be working.

So, who is to say that they are:

Mike Sixel · May 20, 2015

You can choose to drive drunk, and not get in an accident, doesn't make the decision less boneheaded. Doesn't mean that luck doesn't play a role.*

*I am not saying if the decisions the Twins are making are good or bad.....just that judging them on an outcome or 10 is not valid at all.

Brock Beauchamp · May 20, 2015

You can choose to drive drunk, and not get in an accident, doesn't make the decision less boneheaded. Doesn't mean that luck doesn't play a role.*

*I am not saying if the decisions the Twins are making are good or bad.....just that judging them on an outcome or 10 is not valid at all.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't care for their recent roster moves but I'll wait utnil they play out for a week or two before making a decision. It's possible there is more than meets the eye with the Vargas demotion.

If they run with this roster for a month and start losing, then I'll be irritated about it. If they demote Bernier and call up, say, Pinto, then I don't see a problem. It's a long season and we only see the end results, rarely the thinking behind it or the long-term planning that hasn't been enacted yet.

On its face, the Vargas demotion doesn't make sense. If the Twins have more moves planned once they get out of Pittsburgh and/or off this road trip, then it might make more sense. I'll wait it out and see what happens next.

DaveW · May 20, 2015

The Vargas demotion makes plenty of sense, they are on the road against an NL team and Vargas doesn't give you any real flexibility on the bench, and to be honest he isn't exactly hitting lights out so far this year either. He will be back up soon enough and I imagine Bernier will be back down.

FWIW: I don't really like Nunez and don't think he is long for this major league team, but he does have some nice numbers this year in a SSS, might as well roll with him until he fades out again.

DaveW · May 20, 2015

Yeah, pretty much. I don't care for their recent roster moves but I'll wait utnil they play out for a week or two before making a decision. It's possible there is more than meets the eye with the Vargas demotion.

If they run with this roster for a month and start losing, then I'll be irritated about it. If they demote Bernier and call up, say, Pinto, then I don't see a problem. It's a long season and we only see the end results, rarely the thinking behind it or the long-term planning that hasn't been enacted yet.

On its face, the Vargas demotion doesn't make sense. If the Twins have more moves planned once they get out of Pittsburgh and/or off this road trip, then it might make more sense. I'll wait it out and see what happens next.

If Pinto is up he needs to be up for Vargas (and getting DH at bats) or needs to be up for Herman and getting back up catcher at bats/playing time. Having Vargas and Pinto (as well as guys like Arcia) all on the same team starts to limit your flexibility with a lot of guys who can't really field, and may or may not be able to hit enough to justify a DH spot. The best thing in the world would be for one of Vargas or Pinto to go on a quick hot streak for a couple months, Sano to be ready and the Twins be able to flip Vargas or Pinto for some solid value.

JB_Iowa · May 20, 2015

At this point, i trust the "bone-headed" decisions coming out of the front office a heck of a lot more than the "experts" that typically post here.

I find calling the front office's decisions "bone-headed" offensive. We do not know what factors go into many of their decisions.

I have not been a Terry Ryan supporter but so far this year , his plan is coming together better than 90% or so of posters predicted. I don't know why that is -- maybe he truly did just find a pot of shamrocks for good luck. Or, just maybe, he and Paul Molitor have their thumbs on the talents and character of this team.

Mike Sixel · May 20, 2015

I would also not call them boneheaded, agreed on that. Anymore than I would call those that disagree ridiculous, or stats' geeks.* It is certainly possible that all these decisions are working out because they are good decisions, it is more likely (even if I agreed with them all) that luck plays a role. Luck, or randomness, plays a role in all of life. That's why process is so important to business success, it tries to reduce the influence of luck.**

*awful sentence

**actually, when you are bad, you should rely more on luck, but most businesses and teams can't/won't do that......

Brandon · May 20, 2015

I had them at 82 to 85 wins before the Santana suspension. They have a deeper staff that will allow more wins from the bottom of the rotation which was the Twins biggest weakness last year was 3,4, and 5th starter especially 4 and 5. This year we have 6 ready now not counting Santana and another 1 or 3 starters who cold be deserving of a chance before the end of the season so I am not even concerned if anyone not named Hughes gets hurt.

Of course last year I had the Twins as an 80-82 win team and Nolasco as an 12-15 game winner as well as I am very optimistic this time of year.

Willihammer · May 20, 2015

I don't know what Ryan was thinking when he signed Duensing or Stauffer or Nunez again. Or why he refuses to let a marginal Rule 25 pick go. Somehow the team is winning in spite of those boneheaded moves. I'll settle on 84 wins.

Craig Arko · May 20, 2015

Sometimes being a bonehead isn't all bad.

81-81.

h2oface · May 20, 2015

Well that is pretty fair weather picking. As long as one can just change at anytime in this Twins Daily prediction world, I think I will change my prediction at the end of September, maybe even the last day of the season.......

Yeah, that Seth is a real fair weather Twins fan.

I read this reply as "so what you are saying is that you are accusing Seth of being a fair weather Twins' fan." Please correct me if I am wrong, as I do not want to put words into your mouth. That is not what I said or meant. It has everything to do with changing ones picks after the start of the season (in what contests is that even allowed?), and not even the person that did it. Hence, "that is pretty fair weather picking". As I understand from a past warning point awarded, this is called putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. Perhaps the the mods that like your comment feel different than the mod that issued a warning point for the same thing? I guess I am quite confused now about what the rule is and how and to who it is enforced. So, let me say to Seth, if he in fact is offended and thinks that is what I meant, my apologies. An uber fan is in no way a fair weather fan. I hope this clarifies my comment. I will stick with the picks I make before the season starts, because I believe that is the only time a fair prediction can be made.

drivlikejehu · May 20, 2015

The Twins had a period of epic failure from 2011-2014, one of the worst in modern baseball history. So for the team to get lucky for a few weeks and then say the organization is on top of things is just a huge reach, in my opinion, that flies in the face of any conceivable objective analysis.

With respect to BaseRuns, it does not use WAR; BaseRuns is a team measure, not an individual one. It is a linear weights approach that basically is (baserunners * score_rate + home runs). Score rate is what differentiates say, a single from a triple, or a sacrifice bunt from a strikeout. There is no voodoo like you might argue with projection systems - it's very sound statistically and there isn't any noise to speak of.

Pythag by comparison is not nearly as accurate, and it doesn't consider that a team was lucky or unlucky in terms of runs scored or allowed. It really isn't very valuable.

The bottom line is that success isn't about where a team is on May 20. Regardless of production, luck, etc., there is a ton of season left. If the Twins wind up with 95 losses, I'm going to be very reluctant to praise them for being over .500 in late May. Tell me that carrying below replacement level players was a smart move in the September and October threads.

gunnarthor · May 21, 2015

I would also not call them boneheaded, agreed on that. Anymore than I would call those that disagree ridiculous, or stats' geeks.* It is certainly possible that all these decisions are working out because they are good decisions, it is more likely (even if I agreed with them all) that luck plays a role. Luck, or randomness, plays a role in all of life. That's why process is so important to business success, it tries to reduce the influence of luck.**

*awful sentence

**actually, when you are bad, you should rely more on luck, but most businesses and teams can't/won't do that......

The problem is a lot of experts on these boards don't actually know what a good baseball decision is but are more than willing to insult those making them.

Brock Beauchamp · May 21, 2015

The Twins had a period of epic failure from 2011-2014, one of the worst in modern baseball history.

That's not even a little bit accurate. I'm not even going to bother researching it but I know Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Houston, Washington, and Detroit had worse 4+ year disasters since 2003-ish, much less modern baseball history.

That tallies up to ~17% of all MLB franchises in the past dozen years and I didn't even have to research it.

The Twins were a bad team but they never even lost 100 games. Most of those teams I listed (maybe all of them) did it multiple times.

edit: forgot the Nationals.

drivlikejehu · May 21, 2015

That's not even a little bit accurate. I'm not even going to bother researching it but I know Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Houston, Washington, and Detroit had worse 4+ year disasters since 2003-ish, much less modern baseball history.

That tallies up to ~17% of all MLB franchises in the past dozen years and I didn't even have to research it.

The Twins were a bad team but they never even lost 100 games. Most of those teams I listed (maybe all of them) did it multiple times.

edit: forgot the Nationals.

I didn't say the most losses. The Twins thought they were contenders in 2011 - Houston hit bottom after intentionally tearing down the club completely as part of a rebuilding effort. The situations aren't remotely equivalent.

The Nationals lost 100 games twice in a row but still, their 4 year stretch was only 5 total games worse than the Twins, and they were rebuilding in the wake of a franchise relocation.

The Twins set their all-time payroll record in 2011 and fully planned to contend. They only started to rebuild - haltingly - after the club utterly disintegrated. That was the epic fail.

Brock Beauchamp · May 21, 2015

Still not even close to one of the biggest periods of failure in the past 50-ish years of baseball.

drivlikejehu · May 21, 2015

Still not even close to one of the biggest periods of failure in the past 50-ish years of baseball.

Except nowhere did I say anything about the number of losses, significant though they were.

How many teams lost 265 games in 4 years after moving to a new ballpark and setting a record in payroll during the off-season before that stretch kicked off?

Of course that fact pattern is too narrow - but it's not correct to say that all losing stretches are created equal. They aren't, any more than it's the same when you compare a winning stretch for St. Louis with one for the Yankees.

Brock Beauchamp · May 21, 2015

Potential playoff teams get injured and collapse all the time. It's often followed by a long losing streak as it forces a rebuild. Just last year the Rangers collapsed the same way the Twins did in 2011.

In no way, shape, or form was the Twins' 2011-2014 "an epic failure, one of the worst in modern baseball history". That statement was outlandish and hyperbolic, just admit it. I don't even know why I'm arguing this.

DaveW · May 21, 2015

That's not even a little bit accurate. I'm not even going to bother researching it but I know Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Houston, Washington, and Detroit had worse 4+ year disasters since 2003-ish, much less modern baseball history.

That tallies up to ~17% of all MLB franchises in the past dozen years and I didn't even have to research it.

The Twins were a bad team but they never even lost 100 games. Most of those teams I listed (maybe all of them) did it multiple times.

edit: forgot the Nationals.

Hell it wasn't even th3 worst stretch for the twins the last 25 years!

Give me 2011-2014 over 1993-2000 any day of the week. At least we had hope for the future these last few seasons, the mid to late 90's were BRUTAL.

TheLeviathan · May 21, 2015

Hell it wasn't even th3 worst stretch for the twins the last 25 years!

Give me 2011-2014 over 1993-2000 any day of the week. At least we had hope for the future these last few seasons, the mid to late 90's were BRUTAL.

That brutality also came basically a season removed from a core that won two championships.

glunn · May 21, 2015

I wrote 440+ words about the Twins' record and projected season in my May 14 blog.

http://twinsdaily.com/blog/522/entry-6548-the-annexation-of-puerto-rico/

Nice blog. We need more posts from Puerto Rico.

glunn · May 21, 2015

I can't change mine, I've got money on no more than 71 wins.

I put my money on the Twins to win the division and got some odds that now seem pretty good -- 15 to 1.

glunn · May 21, 2015

Moderator note -- I see squabbling above and it needs to stop.

Brandon Warne · May 21, 2015

Looks like a 78-win team to me. I predicted that before Santana was popped, but I still don't think they're too much better than that.

Sign In

Are you ready to change your win prediction?

Recommended Posts

Archived

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blog Entries

Recent Status Updates