It's probably time to relax just a little

[Pardon My Dinger]

 

I posted this elsewhere yesterday, but I want to post it again here:

 

The Twins will win. I don't know how many games and neither do any of you. Too, too, too much gloom and doom. It's a freaking sport played by freaking grown men who make a monstrous amount of money. We as fans can do NOTHING to determine the outcome of any game or season. Being a fan is, in a fundamental way, is a ridiculous waste of time and energy! I wish everyone would please go on with their lives and let their interest in Twins baseball take a comfortable back seat. Enjoy the ride, whatever it is. If they suck so bad this year tune them out. Look at the Royals, riding high, drawing in hordes of fans. Everyone likes a winner. It draws in the everybodys of the world. Then watch them leave like rats leaving a sinking ship in a year or two when they start sucking again, which they inevitably will. Stick around or tune out, but please, if you can, laugh at the whole crazy world of sports and why we care so much. Thank you.

Aw, go back to your "fulfilling personal and professional life," you lousy communist. This is TwinsDaily. We got sports to care about!

 

 

 

[Dantes929]

 

Ah, I remember the Twins 28-2 streak in late summer 2006. That was something else.

The crazy thing was they were 11.5 games, won 21 of their next 23 and were still back.9 games.    2006, 2008 and 2009 were 3 of the closest races in baseball history but 2006 was by far the most fun.    For those that always claim Mauer isn't clutch, those were his 3 best years with awesome final months.  

[Dantes929]

I don't really expect the Twins to replicate the 2006 season.   I think the 1985 season is more realistic.   I will be interested to see how the players develop.    I can easily imagine  a similar development arc to the 80's teams but if not, regroup and try again.    For me it is more about the journey than the destination.   Doesn't mean I wouldn't like the Twins to go on a winning streak.

[ScrapTheNickname]

 

 

Aw, go back to your "fulfilling personal and professional life," you lousy communist. This is TwinsDaily. We got sports to care about!

 

 

 

Perfect response! Thank you.

[brvama]

Here's something to consider: the twins are 5 games back of the leading CWS with 155 games to be played. SO FAR, not insurmountable odds.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Winning in clusters is pretty normal.  Last year, the Astros started 30-17 and went 56-59 for the rest of the season.  A few weeks later, the Twins had their best 47 game run of the season and went 27-20.  They were 56-59 for the rest of the year.  

 

There are good arguments for why the Twins might be in a bad spot (regression, young player development time, etc) but win/loss clusters isn't one of them.   

You're right winning in clusters isn't uncommon. But going 20-7 in May for a team coming off 4 straight 90+ loss seasons and a losing April IS uncommon. An elite team can put together a month like that without much surprise but the Twins weren't an elite team and they still aren't. They showed that by playing under .500 baseball every month last season except May (the outlier) and September when they went 15-13. 

 

Win/loss clusters are exactly what has them in a bad spot. A win cluster is exactly what had them in a good spot last year. You make the playoffs based on your record. Player development and regression can play a part in winning or losing streaks but ultimately its your overall record in 162 games that determines playoff eligibility. Starting 0-7 is a serious hit to the Twins chance of finishing over .500 and making the playoffs, it puts them in bad spot.

[Mr. Brooks]

Hey, relaxing is NEVER a bad thing.

However, a lot of teams have played a lot of seasons since 1901. Not once have any of them ever started 0-7 and made the playoffs.

Maybe, someday, a team will be the first to do so, but it's very unlikely that this Twins team will be the one.

Some will say they never had playoff expectations from this team anyway, and that was probably likely.

But, it's still a big kick in the groin to be essentially out of it a week into the season.

[spinowner]

 

But, it's still a big kick in the groin to be essentially out of it a week into the season.

No baseball team has ever been essentially out of it a week into the season.

[Otto von Ballpark]

While an 0-7 start certainly isn't a good thing, I don't think the "no 0-7 team has ever made the playoffs" fact is particularly meaningful. You could probably find no playoff teams who had a 7 game losing streak from precisely June 1-8 too, which is basically the same bit of trivia as a 7 game losing streak from April 4-11.

 

Mind you, their odds are obviously reduced, I just don't think that factoid represents it accurately.

[sftwinsfan]

Obviously they will play better at some point this season, I just don't think they'll be very good.  Even before this I was thinking and really couldn't come up with a single thing this team was good at.  Starting Pitching-rotation has depth, but has a lot of No.3-No.4 starters.  Bullpen-Yikes!  Questions all over the place including the closer.  Defense-well, some positions are pretty solid.  Then there's C and RF.  Speed-well, Buxton is fast, but he can't steal first unfortunately.  A couple guys aren't really stolen base guys but can run, but then a lot of guys that kind of clog up the bases (Mauer, Plouffe, Sano, Park, Suzuki).  Power-Sano has a lot of power, some others have some power-but are probably more 15-25 HR guys.  OBP-outside of a couple guys these guys don't get on base all that often.  Offense overall-just a lot of guys that hit about .240 and strike out a lot that have some power, but for the most part-not a lot of power.  When they do hit those HR's, many will likely be solo.  

 

 

[Old Twins Cap]

The Twins are not Out of It yet, but then again, they aren't In it Yet.

 

We don't know what they are.  They strike out a lot.  Their defense has been below average. Their pitching is better. 

 

Their young players are not mind blowingly excellent.  And some may be busts.

 

The odds of them making the playoffs were never good and now are worse.  They are in a very good Division.

 

Right now, I have a lot more time to get things done than I anticipated.  And, I hope that changes.  If not, oh well.

[ScrapTheNickname]

 

While an 0-7 start certainly isn't a good thing, I don't think the "no 0-7 team has ever made the playoffs" fact is particularly meaningful. You could probably find no playoff teams who had a 7 game losing streak from precisely June 1-8 too, which is basically the same bit of trivia as a 7 game losing streak from April 4-11.

Mind you, their odds are obviously reduced, I just don't think that factoid represents it accurately.

Also, the term "playoffs" has been diluted significantly over the past few years, so historical data on this is not exactly accurate.

[ScrapTheNickname]

If the season was football

We would be in the 3rd quarter

Of the first game

 

(Not quite 7% of the season is over.)

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

If the season was football

We would be in the 3rd quarter

Of the first game

 

(Not quite 7% of the season is over.)

Yes.

 

And going into week 2 with an 0-1 record.

[USAFChief]

Yes.

 

And going into week 2 with an 0-1 record.

Hoping to go 7-0 in week two to get back to 1-1.

[Rosterman]

 

Last year has nothing at all to do with this year. Especially winning 20 games in May. It is what it is. Fans deserve better.  My preseason position was that Perkins is cooked, Jepsen was fools gold, Fien should have been non-tendered, May should be in the rotation, Tonkin should be in Korea, Abad was a reclamation project that a full year would totally expose as another in a long history of Terry Ryan's misguided and paralyzed by hope moves, and the bullpen would be challenged, especially trying to hold the lead. I guess the advice is I should not re-think that?

Few of us expected the Twins to have the record they had last season. Considering how some of the prospects fared in the minors, 2016 would also be a rebuilding year although management will say differently (hey, they DO want to put butts in the stands.). How the bullpen was addressed? Where, It was still done on the hope that continuing players will produce and bandaids could be supplied, as they wait for the next crop of talent to emerge and push for roster spots this season and definitely next. Maybe it will happen. If the prospects do push and pan out, we will have the speed and the Ks.

 

The starters have pitched their hearts out the first time thru. It is the batters that aren't doping their job. If the Twins score 4 runs or more, they would probably win, minus a fielding mistake or a tate pitch (or that dreaded extra-inning lead-off walk by May followed by...whaaaaaat).

 

Yes, the Twins could've purchased a $30 million dollar additional bullpen. Would they have still rid themselves of Jepson, or Fien, or demoted Perkins to setup? Highly unlikely on any of those fronts (although I voted for Casey being non-tendered and resigned on the cheaper, if resigned).

 

Still 155 more games. You can't possibly lose them all.

 

[Dantes929]

While no team has ever started 0-7 to start the season and made the playoffs many teams have lost at least 7 in a row at some point and still made the playoffs including our own 1970, 1991 and 2003 teams.   Might as well lose 3 more in a row and then make the playoffs and really blow people's minds.

[AlwaysinModeration]

...It is the batters that aren't doping...

 

You've found the key, I think.

[Mr. Brooks]

A whole lot of denial going on.

Starting 0-7 is NOT the same as a 7 game losing streak in June.

When the streak comes in June, a team has already established a baseline of talent/ability/success to put that steak in context.

When a team starts the season 0-7 it becomes much more likely that IS their baseline.

 

This roster was going to need a lot of things going their way to make the playoffs anyways. It's essentially the same roster that missed the playoffs last year despite a month long run of good luck so incredible we'll probably never see it repeated in our lifetimes.

This team doesn't have the talent to spot the rest of the league 7 games, I'm sorry.

[Brock Beauchamp]

While an 0-7 start certainly isn't a good thing, I don't think the "no 0-7 team has ever made the playoffs" fact is particularly meaningful. You could probably find no playoff teams who had a 7 game losing streak from precisely June 1-8 too, which is basically the same bit of trivia as a 7 game losing streak from April 4-11.

 

Mind you, their odds are obviously reduced, I just don't think that factoid represents it accurately.

Yeah, this. A seven game losing streak is always a bad sign but people are making a *much* bigger deal out of it because it's the first seven games.

 

And that's understandable, to a point... But too many are declaring it the end of the season, or something close to it.

 

The Twins face the Angels and Brewers next. If they do their jobs, a lot of ground can be covered in those 6-7 games.

[Willihammer]

Not to mention, most of league history didn't include a wildcard, much less two wildcards.

[ashbury]

Starting 0-7 is NOT the same as a 7 game losing streak in June.

When the streak comes in June, a team has already established a baseline of talent/ability/success to put that steak in context.

When a team starts the season 0-7 it becomes much more likely that IS their baseline.

I agree and want to say more. It's not just the baseline. Cherry picking is always a risk when looking at subsets of stats.

 

A mid-season losing streak is cherry picked, in the sense that the start date and end date are chosen after the fact. Every such streak is preceded by a win, and also followed by a win, except at the beginning or ending of a season. Thus we're talking about a 2-7 stretch of games, and 0-7 is how it's expressed to make it sound worse.

 

Not so, here. The starting date for a season is also arbitrary in a sense, but is the time when we tell our team, "OK, show us whatcha got". So far, they've shown no wins. We don't actually know what result would have occurred if the league had started playing for keeps a day earlier - maybe we'd have an 8 game losing streak on our hands, and that is never true for midseason 0-7 streaks, as explained above.

 

We also don't know for sure how long this streak will go. Maybe we'll be 0-8 after today, maybe not. That is likewise not the case for cherry-picked 0-7 streaks.

 

So this situation is almost surely worse than garden variety 0-7 streaks. Which might be why I see written (I haven't checked independently) that there have been postseason-bound teams that go 0-7 at some point in the season, but none that have gone 0-7 out of the gate.

[Dantes929]

 

A whole lot of denial going on.
Starting 0-7 is NOT the same as a 7 game losing streak in June.
When the streak comes in June, a team has already established a baseline of talent/ability/success to put that steak in context.
When a team starts the season 0-7 it becomes much more likely that IS their baseline.

This roster was going to need a lot of things going their way to make the playoffs anyways. It's essentially the same roster that missed the playoffs last year despite a month long run of good luck so incredible we'll probably never see it repeated in our lifetimes.
This team doesn't have the talent to spot the rest of the league 7 games, I'm sorry.

I disagree with this completely.   0-162 is their baseline?      Its not a good thing to spot the league 7 games anytime but there is no baseline.   A young team that starts out poorly is going to press more than when they have some history of success.     Losing begets losing and winning begets winning.   We don't know what this team is capable of until they loosen up.    If there is a baseline it is last year and spring training that says this team is capable of averaging more than 1.8 runs a game and capable of scoring more than 3 runs in any given game.  There is no baseline.   

[Mike Sixel]

It's not a young team.......it's not.

 

The infield is all veterans. The pitching staff is older than that. 

 

It is not a young team.

[cjj td]

ASH - So by this logic are you saying that if we had started the season 3-4, that that set of games is somehow different than any other seven game 3-4 stretch during the season???

[cjj td]

Mike - The players that are most responsible for the seasons 0-7 start ARE young and/or have very little MLB experience.  Our old starting pitching staff has little to do with our 7 losses.  Half of our old infield is hitting the ball just fine.  RP... well maybe I'll have to concede a little there.

 

[ashbury]

 

ASH - So by this logic are you saying that if we had started the season 3-4, that that set of games is somehow different than any other seven game 3-4 stretch during the season???

Sure, because you have to poke around in the stats to find a correct combination of 7 games that gives you the 3-4 you want. Those combinations are far less rare than 0-7, but by doing so one has still corrupted the random-data assumption that underlies a statistical approach.

[ashbury]

I'll say it a different way, for anybody with an engineering background: endpoints have a defining impact on a solution.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

It's not a young team.......it's not.

 

The infield is all veterans. The pitching staff is older than that. 

 

It is not a young team.

You are starting to hear this a lot in various places in the media. I don't know where these ideas come from. You are 100% correct. Plouffe, Dozier, Suzuki are not young guys. Perkins, Jepsen and Fien are not young guys.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You are starting to hear this a lot in various places in the media. I don't know where these ideas come from. You are 100% correct. Plouffe, Dozier, Suzuki are not young guys. Perkins, Jepsen and Fien are not young guys.

They're a pretty young team.

 

Average age is 28.0 years old, 7th youngest in baseball.

 

Oldest player is 33 years old, 2nd youngest in baseball.

 

The three teams directly in front of the Twins in average age are in full-blown rebuild mode (or at least should be): Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Cincinnati.

 

They're a young team.