Going for it

[jimmer]

 

If you cherry pick small sample sizes of 8 years (2002-2010) for one team, then sure, you can back up almost any point. But the whole point of the phrase "statistically speaking" is that it doesn't show up in the data until you get to large sample sizes. You might say, well if it doesn't show up in the data for a long time, then why do we care since we will be dead by then. Two reasons, (1) because your son or gradnson will be around then, and we are concered with long time horizons, since by our initial assumptions, we are talking about flags flying "forever." (2) More fundamentally, even over the short run, I argue the team that makes it to the playoffs most often will win the most world series, on average. You may disagree with that, and I could be wrong, but being able to pick an 8 year period for one team out of 30 where that didn't come true doesn't even remotely disprove the assertion. It doesn't even come close.

I can buy that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

While I would have liked to see bigger signs of "going for it" smartly (getting a Cliff Lee deal done, getting Thome 4+ years earlier than we did), I think the Twins playoff/Yankee issues stem from a more troubling source.  For the most part, our teams have just looked different in big games, as compared to the average playoff team.  Not sure why, maybe a few years of Yankee whippings and playoff losses in 2002-2004 just snowballed, but I still got that vibe from the 2015 squad against NY and in the season ending series vs KC.

 

Maybe an out-of-character "go for it" move would counteract that effect, I don't know, but there's no reason on paper why this team should have come up empty-handed so often in recent history.  Hopefully in 2016 they put that behind them.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I still blame Gardy for 2004... and honestly, the biggest yankee choker was Joe Nathan, and I'd argue that started after 2004 when he was left in way too long.  He stopped using his bread and butter and threw only breaking pitches when he was closing out games for them.  Several walks later, he was in a jam.  Perhaps that's selective memory, but when it came to choking against the Yankees, Gardy's chronic mismanagement and Nathan's refusual to do what he did best struck me as the top issues. 

 

Back on topic.  There's a time to go for it and one not to.  I see both sides of that.  The problem with this team is that it was a pretender, not a contender.  I don't fault Ryan for being a bit cautious there.  It will be interesting to see what Ryan does this offseason, as the decision to go for it shouldn't be made in July; it should be made in December.  This team has some clear upgrades that could be made for relatively cheap as well as some tradable surplus assets that can be shed to provide other key pieces.  This offseason is the time to go for it.  I'll be disappointed if the only token changes are a couple of RP pickups.  There's no reason to think that Ryan cannot assemble a clear playoff competitor this offseason while keeping key 'help on the way guys' like Buxton, Berrios, and Kepler. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I still blame Gardy for 2004... and honestly, the biggest yankee choker was Joe Nathan, and I'd argue that started after 2004 when he was left in way too long.  He stopped using his bread and butter and threw only breaking pitches when he was closing out games for them.  Several walks later, he was in a jam.  Perhaps that's selective memory, but when it came to choking against the Yankees, Gardy's chronic mismanagement and Nathan's refusual to do what he did best struck me as the top issues.

Nathan was actually pretty good in 2004.  A 1-2-3 inning for a 2-0 save in Game 1, followed by retiring 7 of his first 8 batters faced in a tie game the next night (absolutely should have been pulled once he walked the next 2, though), both of those in Yankee Stadium, and another 1.2 shutout innings in a tied Game 4 at the Dome, stranding multiple potential go-ahead runners in scoring position with less than 2 outs.

 

And after he was mostly a non-factor in the 2006 playoffs, he definitely blew Game 2 in 2009 and let a couple inherited insurance runs score in Game 3 but we were already doomed by that point.

 

Nathan isn't Rivera, but I really don't see that much wrong with his postseason record.  For that matter, Gardy's postseason moves weren't that terrible either (aside from leaving Nathan in too long, and perhaps starting / sticking with rookie Kubel in that same game).

 

There was just an air of defeat about those Twins clubs (and arguably the current Twins club) at most critical moments.  I know like winning leads to a good clubhouse atmosphere, so can losing lead to that air of defeat, but I can't otherwise explain our atrocious recent playoff/Yankee record.

[USAFChief]

Nathan was actually pretty good in 2004.  A 1-2-3 inning for a 2-0 save in Game 1, followed by retiring 7 of his first 8 batters faced in a tie game the next night (absolutely should have been pulled once he walked the next 2, though), both of those in Yankee Stadium, and another 1.2 shutout innings in a tied Game 4 at the Dome, stranding multiple potential go-ahead runners in scoring position with less than 2 outs.

 

And after he was mostly a non-factor in the 2006 playoffs, he definitely blew Game 2 in 2009 and let a couple inherited insurance runs score in Game 3 but we were already doomed by that point.

 

Nathan isn't Rivera, but I really don't see that much wrong with his postseason record.  For that matter, Gardy's postseason moves weren't that terrible either (aside from leaving Nathan in too long, and perhaps starting / sticking with rookie Kubel in that same game).

 

There was just an air of defeat about those Twins clubs (and arguably the current Twins club) at most critical moments.  I know like winning leads to a good clubhouse atmosphere, so can losing lead to that air of defeat, but I can't otherwise explain our atrocious recent playoff/Yankee record.

I always felt Gardy let his team know how he felt with multiple (paraphrasing here) "we'll have to pay perfect baseball to beat that team" quotes going into the postseason. The Twins were intimidated, and it started with the manager.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I always felt Gardy let his team know how he felt with multiple (paraphrasing here) "we'll have to pay perfect baseball to beat that team" quotes going into the postseason. The Twins were intimidated, and it started with the manager.

Small sample so far, of course, but did you get the same vibe from Molitor's team this year when facing the Yankees, or facing the Royals in a de facto playoff series to end the season?  The results on the field certainly matched many of Gardy's big Yankee/playoff series performances (although previously we did hang pretty tough with divisional opponents down the stretch in the regular season).

[USAFChief]

Small sample so far, of course, but did you get the same vibe from Molitor's team this year when facing the Yankees, or facing the Royals in a de facto playoff series to end the season?  The results on the field certainly matched many of Gardy's big Yankee/playoff series performances (although previously we did hang pretty tough with divisional opponents down the stretch in the regular season).

I didnt at all. I thought they got beat.

 

We'll see going forward, but I sort of felt one real noticeable trait of this year's team was, while short on talent in some areas, they were long on heart and moxie. Whatever that is.

 

I never thought they looked or played intimidated.

[SwainZag]

 

I always felt Gardy let his team know how he felt with multiple (paraphrasing here) "we'll have to pay perfect baseball to beat that team" quotes going into the postseason. The Twins were intimidated, and it started with the manager.

 

It didn't help that those Yankee teams were chalked full of superstars and HOF players. I know it's not an excuse and they realistically should have done better, those were some damn talented teams.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I didnt at all. I thought they got beat.

We'll see going forward, but I sort of felt one real noticeable trait of this year's team was, while short on talent in some areas, they were long on heart and moxie. Whatever that is.

I never thought they looked or played intimidated.

They certainly battled, many times I thought they'd finally fold up but they managed to hang in there almost to the very end.  The two Yankees series and the season finale Royals series followed a bit of a predictable pattern though.

 

Going into the year, I actually thought a losing season would be fine as long as the team actually followed through on a good showing against the Yankees.  Admittedly hard to do in any given single season, but it didn't happen this year for whatever reason.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It didn't help that those Yankee teams were chalked full of superstars and HOF players. I know it's not an excuse and they realistically should have done better, those were some damn talented teams.

"Realistically should have done better" is putting it mildly -- this has been an epic 13 season long beat-down.  From http://m.mlb.com/news/article/144113494/yankees-continue-to-dominate-twins

 

 

 

Since 2002, the Yankees have gone 69-27 against the Twins in the regular season. That .281 losing percentage for Minnesota is by far the worst in baseball for any team vs. any opponent (minimum 50 games). Since '02, the Yankees have also ended the Twins' postseason runs four times ('03, '04, '09, '10), compiling a dominating 12-2 playoff record in that time against Minnesota.
Did you know:
• No other team has a losing percentage worse than .337 against a single opponent since 2002 (the Padres are 30-59 against the Phillies).

Add postseason and regular season, and that's a .264 winning percentage.

 

They also note that "the Yankees appear most often on teams' "bottom" two list -- 11 times" so it's not just the Twins that struggle against them (I would be interested to see those teams and their records vs. NY), but nobody has struggled against anyone to the extent of the Twins vs the Yankees since 2002, which is especially bizarre given our generally solid regular season records during that time.

 

Also note that during our 2002-2010 run, both Detroit and Cleveland dispatched the Yankees in playoff series, and additionally the White Sox beat the Angels immediately after the Angels dispatched the Yankees.

[SwainZag]

 

"Realistically should have done better" is putting it mildly -- this has been an epic 13 season long beat-down.  From http://m.mlb.com/news/article/144113494/yankees-continue-to-dominate-twins

 

Add postseason and regular season, and that's a .264 winning percentage.

 

They also note that "the Yankees appear most often on teams' "bottom" two list -- 11 times" so it's not just the Twins that struggle against them (I would be interested to see those teams and their records vs. NY), but nobody has struggled against anyone to the extent of the Twins vs the Yankees since 2002, which is especially bizarre given our generally solid regular season records during that time.

 

Also note that during our 2002-2010 run, both Detroit and Cleveland dispatched the Yankees in playoff series, and additionally the White Sox beat the Angels immediately after the Angels dispatched the Yankees.

 

Yeah, I know the overall numbers, I was referring more to just the playoff losses.