Grantland article about the Twins

[amjgt]

The Twins success has pretty much forced national organizations to write an obligatory piece about them, but most of them have been Fluke this, Fluke that, Small sample size, Regression to the Mean, etc.

 

This article does some of that, to be sure, but at least counterpoints it by talking about some of the Twins are are performing below expectations and could help stem some of that Regression to the Mean.

 

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-minnesota-twins-surprising-start/

 

The one part I disagree with is that Aaron Hicks has been "terrible." Seems like the person that wrote that has been just looking at boxscores. I don't often catch the SportsCenter Top 10, or the daily Web Gems, but I have to think Hicks has been in there several times in the last week. It's one thing to make diving catches when there is nobody on base, but these catches have literally been run(s) saving.

 

[JB_Iowa]

I'm sure the writer believes his introductory paragraphs were clever ....

 

they weren't.

[drjim]

 

I'm sure the writer believes his introductory paragraphs were clever ....

 

they weren't.

 

And that trend seemed to continue for the rest of the piece.

[Mike Sixel]

Not the rest of the piece, that's harsh.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Well the rest of the piece isn't exactly Twins Daily quality. There's no mention of Neil Allen at all, or that the staff is relying less on the fastball, or Plouffe's glove, Kyle Gibson, Escobar, the horrible opening series that would actually put the Twins at an even better record, and so on.

 

The Grantland writer sees the W-L record and without knowing much about the Twins, concludes that they will inevitably backslide, without really understanding many of the deeper things that are happening. (And yeah they might backslide, etc)

[TheLeviathan]

Grantland's writer schtick is becoming noticeably more obnoxious.  I saw it in the "Are the NBA Playoffs boring" post as well.  

 

But this article does a nice job pointing out how the Twins are defying the odds.  It's not wrong to point out, because either the Twins are going to keep defying them or things might get hairy or they might change the odds.  Either way, a little deeper analysis of our success isn't a bad thing.  

[JB_Iowa]

 

 

But this article does a nice job pointing out how the Twins are defying the odds.  It's not wrong to point out, because either the Twins are going to keep defying them or things might get hairy or they might change the odds.  Either way, a little deeper analysis of our success isn't a bad thing.  

 

As a counterpoint from the "Homer Side", Bollinger posted this today and makes some reasonable points:

 

http://m.twins.mlb.com/news/article/127215472/clutch-hitting-at-center-of-twins-emergence

 

FWIW, other than the opening Schtick, I didn't find the Grantland writer's points very offensive or off-base.  On the other hand, my blood about boils when I hear Keith Law -- according to him, nothing matters but what he has been predicting based on the numbers (and basically he thinks the Twins will fall flat on their faces.)  

 

I'm sorry, but I do believe that a change in leadership and in clubhouse atmosphere can have an impact -- an impact that is hard to measure but an impact nevertheless.

 

It's why baseball is played on the field and not on computer screens.

 

 

[brvama]

That was as difficult to read as what I might imagine a romance novel would be. He needs to move into fiction. Granted my attitude was cautioned by these posts, but seriously, he had a premise and made sure he found whatever obscure supporting data available.

 

And really should any of us be surprised by any of this? It's just a continuation of a general lack of respect we, and other MW reams, have received since 2001. Even after the Royals got to the World Series with their many shortcomings many of these pundits still think this game is played by individual statics. Last I looked it's still a team game. Don't tell that because they don't think it will happen it won't. Do the research and give me good analysis, not a back of the napkin study.

[Craig Arko]

Meh. It could be worse.

[brvama]

Just got done reading Bollingers piece. Now that is what I'm talking about. There was no sugar coating or dismissing of the facts and statistics, but he gave solid reasons what has been happening for this surge in wins.

 

I still question whether all this is sustainable, but it's also possible certain players start performing toward their norm and thus the Twins remain relevant.

[drjim]

 

Grantland's writer schtick is becoming noticeably more obnoxious.  I saw it in the "Are the NBA Playoffs boring" post as well.  

 

But this article does a nice job pointing out how the Twins are defying the odds.  It's not wrong to point out, because either the Twins are going to keep defying them or things might get hairy or they might change the odds.  Either way, a little deeper analysis of our success isn't a bad thing.  

 

To clarify my own criticism of the article, I am not disputing the numbers he cites or (to an extent) the conclusions that he comes to. I was more put off by the overall presentation of the article.

 

I have seen similar analysis done much better here and on Fangraphs as well.

[drivlikejehu]

The Twins' record clearly exceeds their underlying individual performances. That's what Keith Law and others have said, which are facts that have been discussed plenty here. 

 

Why should a non-Twins fan be giddy about the team? Equating the mindset of Twins fans to analysts or commentators doesn't make any sense. The perspective is completely different. It would be one thing if the sources mentioned above bent over backwards to compliment every team other than the Twins, but that's obviously not the case. There are a variety of perspectives, as it should be... the victimhood routine is a tiresome one in the pro sports world.

 

 

[Blake]

 

And that trend seemed to continue for the rest of the piece.

I have to second your opinion.

 

The article had the makings of a decent piece, but the author let his snarkego get away from him.

[mickeymental]

well, yesterday grantland's jonah keri wrote up his quarter-season awards and named houston as the biggest surprise without listing a runner up ...

[Craig Arko]

I nominate Chief to invite this author to come do a game thread.

[JB_Iowa]

 

Why should a non-Twins fan be giddy about the team? \

 

I don't expect them to be giddy.

 

I do expect them to be courteous.

 

Keith Law is just rude.  Not just to the Twins but to his fellow panelists.

[TheLeviathan]

 

As a counterpoint from the "Homer Side", Bollinger posted this today and makes some reasonable points:

 

http://m.twins.mlb.com/news/article/127215472/clutch-hitting-at-center-of-twins-emergence

 

FWIW, other than the opening Schtick, I didn't find the Grantland writer's points very offensive or off-base.  On the other hand, my blood about boils when I hear Keith Law -- according to him, nothing matters but what he has been predicting based on the numbers (and basically he thinks the Twins will fall flat on their faces.)  

 

I'm sorry, but I do believe that a change in leadership and in clubhouse atmosphere can have an impact -- an impact that is hard to measure but an impact nevertheless.

 

It's why baseball is played on the field and not on computer screens.

 

The grantland article, between the heaping amounts of snark, is based on the same facts the Bollinger one is.  I think we can all identify why the Twins are winning, but the Grantland piece is looking at the larger context and the odds of sustainability.

 

It's not a crime, or anything to hold against the team, that they are winning and being successful against the odds.  It happens every year to a few teams.  

 

I tend to agree that the clubhouse changes have had a tremendous and largely unquantifiable gain for the team on the field.  At the same time, there are a lot of underlying issues with the team that makes sustainability unlikely.  But there is no law against lucky winning - they all count the same.  And there is also nothing stopping the team's confidence from growing and changing some of those underlying factors that make sustainability unlikely.  (Thus shifting the success from luck to actual sustainability)

 

It doesn't take anything away from my joy at watching quality baseball again to know that the team is bucking the odds.  They've had enough bad luck over the last 5 years for me not to feel like I need to apologize for it.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I don't expect them to be giddy.

 

I do expect them to be courteous.

 

Keith Law is just rude.  Not just to the Twins but to his fellow panelists.

 

I still don't get it - why do random people have to meet your standard of a courteous tone when discussing the Twins? If they are factually correct, don't make unfair personal attacks, etc., then I am failing to see the grounds for complaint. If you don't like a writer's style, don't read him or her, whether it's for snarkiness, or being boring, or any other reason.

[drjim]

 

The grantland article, between the heaping amounts of snark, is based on the same facts the Bollinger one is.  I think we can all identify why the Twins are winning, but the Grantland piece is looking at the larger context and the odds of sustainability.

 

It's not a crime, or anything to hold against the team, that they are winning and being successful against the odds.  It happens every year to a few teams.  

 

I tend to agree that the clubhouse changes have had a tremendous and largely unquantifiable gain for the team on the field.  At the same time, there are a lot of underlying issues with the team that makes sustainability unlikely.  But there is no law against lucky winning - they all count the same.  And there is also nothing stopping the team's confidence from growing and changing some of those underlying factors that make sustainability unlikely.  (Thus shifting the success from luck to actual sustainability)

 

It doesn't take anything away from my joy at watching quality baseball again to know that the team is bucking the odds.  They've had enough bad luck over the last 5 years for me not to feel like I need to apologize for it.

 

I think the other thing the Twins have going for them is that they have the potential to improve the true talent level of the team just through in house additions - Santana, Meyer (as a reliever), improved Vargas and/or Arcia, Pinto if they let him, possibly Buxton/Sano/Berrios/AA reliever(s) in a couple of months, the return of Doug Bernier.

 

So while certainly some regression will take place, perhaps an infusion of talent will raise the floor and soften the bounce enough to really hang around.

[nicksaviking]

It really did have a feel of a piece written about a subject he hadn't seen.  Still, it really wasn't too off base.

 

Actually, the one thing I think was a little off base was the idea that Molitor was using Perkins more wisely. Perk is generally pitching in the highest leverage situations, but that's simply because it's always the ninth.  Baumann even commented more than once that the Twins played in a lot of one run games, so it doesn't take a genius to figure out that in a one run game, the 9th is always going to be a high leverage situation, well unless it's only a one run game because the closer himself made it that way. 

 

Not to take anything away from Molitor, it's just that other than the couple times he got an extra out in the 8th, I can't think of one instance where Gardy wouldn't have done the exact same thing with Perkins.

[drjim]

 

Not to take anything away from Molitor, it's just that other than the couple times he got an extra out in the 8th, I can't think of one instance where Gardy wouldn't have done the exact same thing with Perkins.

 

8th inning tie game on the road against the White Sox is the other.

 

But 3 outings out of 23 appearances seems pretty significant.

[nicksaviking]

 

I still don't get it - why do random people have to meet your standard of a courteous tone when discussing the Twins? If they are factually correct, don't make unfair personal attacks, etc., then I am failing to see the grounds for complaint. If you don't like a writer's style, don't read him or her, whether it's for snarkiness, or being boring, or any other reason.

 

I agree, KLaw goes a little overboard sometimes though.  I'm not sure why he does chats, he doesn't seem to be able to handle anything that resembles a disagreement and the point of a chat is to interact with baseball fans who, duh, have a team bias usually.  That being said, I don't think he dislikes the Twins, I just think he dislikes everything.  He doesn't seem like a person who enjoys many things, even baseball.

[Brock Beauchamp]

KLaw is kinda a jerk. I think he's a relatively smart jerk but he's still a jerk. He takes completely unnecessary shots at players, fans, and random standers-by for no real reason. And God help you if you disagree with his points.

 

In short, he seems a completely unlikable fellow, even when he's right about something... Or especially when he's right about something, actually.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

As a counterpoint from the "Homer Side", Bollinger posted this today and makes some reasonable points:

 

http://m.twins.mlb.com/news/article/127215472/clutch-hitting-at-center-of-twins-emergence

 

FWIW, other than the opening Schtick, I didn't find the Grantland writer's points very offensive or off-base.  On the other hand, my blood about boils when I hear Keith Law -- according to him, nothing matters but what he has been predicting based on the numbers (and basically he thinks the Twins will fall flat on their faces.)  

 

I'm sorry, but I do believe that a change in leadership and in clubhouse atmosphere can have an impact -- an impact that is hard to measure but an impact nevertheless.

 

It's why baseball is played on the field and not on computer screens.

to be fair, Bollinger was optimistic last August too

[gocgo]

I get what the author is saying.  The Royals have scored 3 runs more than the Twins, but the Twins have allowed 191 runs compared to 169 for the Royals.  He is saying that the 28-18 record of both doesn't match up with the run differential.  The Royals have a run differential of +46, the Twins have a run differential of +21.

 

But here is what the author ignored - the Twins had a run differential of -29 after one week, a turn around of +50.

 

In short, I disagree with the author.  The Twins run differential does justify their record...if you consider where they were after the first week.

[Pius Jefferson]

 

KLaw is kinda a jerk. I think he's a relatively smart jerk but he's still a jerk. He takes completely unnecessary shots at players, fans, and random standers-by for no real reason. And God help you if you disagree with his points.

In short, he seems a completely unlikable fellow, even when he's right about something... Or especially when he's right about something, actually.

 

'Kind of' is being generous. If he truly dislikes so many things than that speaks for itself. If he's being a jerk simply to get under peoples skins that doesn't help his case imo.

[USAFChief]

KLaw is kinda a jerk. I think he's a relatively smart jerk but he's still a jerk. He takes completely unnecessary shots at players, fans, and random standers-by for no real reason. And God help you if you disagree with his points.

In short, he seems a completely unlikable fellow, even when he's right about something... Or especially when he's right about something, actually.

In my estimation, the problem is he's never, ever wrong. About anything.

[ashbury]

I would like to see Keith Law interview Greg Popovich in some kind of Iron Cage Death Match. The topic of the interview can be anything - Tea Party politics, the relative merits of Catholicism versus Islam, gender equality, the Spurs' early exit in the playoffs this year, or why SABRmetrics is a fraud. Just so long as someone is likely to be dismissive to the other, and there is no tapping out.

 

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SdMSzDrloiM/maxresdefault.jpg

[Brandon Warne]

I like Baumann, but I didn't think it was fair to call Trevor May below average and Hicks "terrible." Hicks hasn't really been up long enough to matter, and has been tremendous defensively despite a rough start hitting-wise. 

 

I'm a stats guy for sure, but you really have to watch Hicks to see he's working with new mechanics in the big leagues, and I think that sort of thing merits mention.

[TheLeviathan]

Hicks, with the bat, has absolutely been terrible.  Putrid and still not driving the ball.  He's been an absolutely outstanding fielder, however.