Article: Making Sense of Second Place

[alexlegge]

It’s fairly shocking to see the Twins and Tigers in a virtual tie for 2nd place, especially considering how poorly the Twins have played in Tigers-Twins games. To make some sense of this enigma, I decided to compare the two team using some simple metrics, excluding their head-to-head games:

 

Minus their head-to-head games, the Twins and Tigers seem relatively evenly matched. The Tigers look like a slightly superior offensive club based on their ability to get on base. The Twins, on the other hand, look like a slightly superior pitching club based on their control and ability to keep the ball in the ballpark. Some of these slight differences are somewhat surprising, but they make more sense if you consider ballparks.

 

Next, let’s compare the teams in terms of overall performance:

 

Based on this, it is clear that the Twins have done a lot more than the Tigers with essentially the same performance. Essentially, their tie for second-place seems to be only because of the Twins’ over-performance and the Tigers’ under-performance.

 

Finally, let’s compare these teams with Team C. Team C seems to be better than or equal to both the Twins and Tigers in virtually every measure except HR allowed. And Team C’s overall performance is excellent, though not quite as videogame-ish as the 2015 Twins minus Tigers games. Who is Team C? The 2006 Twins, who were arguably the best Twins team during the Gardenhire era, finishing 96-66 (3 games better than their Pythagorean record).

 

So how can we explain the Twins’ crappy performance against the Tigers so far this season? Here are 4 possibilities:
1. Statistical regression toward the Twins’ actual playing ability has mostly occurred during games with the Tigers
2. The Twins don’t “match up” well with the Tigers
3. Small sample size
4. The Twins have a psychological block against the Tigers

 

In reality, there’s probably a kernel of truth to all of these things. Possibilities 1 and 2 are fairly self-explanatory, although it’s also worth pointing out that the 2011-2014 Twins teams played substantially better against the Tigers than this 2015 team so far, which seems to support possibility 3. 

 

Possibility 4 may be the most intriguing. Perhaps the Twins, on the brink of becoming a contender, are intimidated by a Tigers team that has been the class of the division since 2011. In essence, these Twins may be so used to perceiving themselves as a second-tier team compared to the Tigers that their perceptions actually play out on the field in head-to-head games. This wouldn’t be the first time this has happened to a Twins team on the brink of contention; you may recall the 2001 Twins, who went 5-14 against the Indians and lost the division to them by 6 games. I wouldn’t be surprised if this year plays out similarly with respect to the Tigers and Twins. It’s also interesting to consider the Twins decent performance against the Royals, who are clearly a phenomenal team but don’t have the years of winning to enhance their ‘intimidation factor.’ In any case, I’m excited to see how the Twins’ performance against the Tigers – and everyone else – plays out over the rest of the season.

[twinsnorth49]

After the last four years I don't want to make sense of it, I just want to enjoy it. There are still a few positional soft spots and the pen scares the crap out of me but given the club has some actual depth these days I'm less worried.

 

I like the makeup of this team for the most part, they're fun to watch.

[stringer bell]

Agree with Twinsnorth. My simple formula for the Twins to win 85 games this year was for them to improve by one game against each opponent and win an additional inter-league game.  They overperformed against few teams and underperformed against several. The team doesn't look like they will improve a game against the Tigers, but they might make that up against Chicago. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

well, even if the season is lost, beating up on the WhiteSox is always a nice consolation prize.

[Thrylos]

I think that possibility number 6 is the most logical one:

 

What is the single biggest difference between last season and this season as far as personnel goes (no Hunter over Willingham is not it) ?

 

Makes the ones of us who were calling (for a while) for Gardenhire and Anderson (& Co) to be fired, pretty vindicated.