Fangraphs (and other national publications) on the Twins

[USAFChief]

Perhaps too far into the forest to see the trees.

With a magnifying glass: the number of micro level discrepancies between the Twins and the Dodgers is stunning.

High level: this happens in every sport nearly every post season. This is routine, not an abnormality if you take a step back.

It's why it's called "sport," not "spreadsheet."

[Brock Beauchamp]

Finally read the Sullivan article and... was he drunk? What was the point of that piece?

 

I take no offense from it but I don’t understand why it exists. Lots of mediocre teams have won it all, even before the second WC... hell, before the WC at all.

[Platoon]

Not sure about the kerfuffle over this article. He issued an early note that this could be about other teams, not just the Twins. He raised both sides of the issue, and asked for an opinion. And he made some interesting, although I am sure previously litigated arguments. Btw, what topic hasn't been previously litigated? Starting with playoff formats. We like math here. And simple math tells us that the more teams allowed in the playoffs, the lower the bar to get there. Regular seasons sort out the best teams, that's also math. The playoffs sort out the "hot" team. If you go back to the old MLB format, you likely get one of the best teams actually winning the WS. But in this day and age of the fickle fan, stadiums would empty in August. The second WC is to sell tickets, nothing more. While I can understand Sullivan's question about a WC winning the WS causing paralysis amongst FO types, I doubt it will happen. These are competitive people, prone to action, driven to succeed, and hoping to keep interest in the product. Stagnation does not sooth them. Basically his article was just an article, something to fill his quota. But, if he wanted to ask what's good for baseball, maybe these questions could have been asked? All the homeruns? Strikeouts? Endless pitching changes? Length of games? Effect of shifts on stats? And how the proliferation of stats amongst us common folk (fans) has altered our perception of the game and our favorite teams. Do these unlimited and endless discussions of stats alter how we feel about a team or a player. A fan and a MLB scout or FO type would seem have two different personnas. One is based on fanaticism and a certain disconnect from reality. The other should be a cold blooded analytical deal maker. It seems to me that the blurring of those lines makes it that much harder for some to accept that the Twins will indeed be a playoff team. The underlying numbers don't support that fact. So instead of looking at your favorite players and knowing they have as good a chance as anyone, you look at all the numbers that say they don't. And nothing ruins a good buzz like reality!

[Mike Sixel]

 

The point is, it happened previously.  Not. So. Rare.  It happens.

 

Also, Colorado and Milwaukee have about the same record with the Twins and one of them will be the Wild Card.

Why single the Twins out? 

 

other than in the article he says he could use others an example, but the Twins are hte current one in the playoffs so he's using them? Nothing.....but he literally addresses that in the article.

 

Again, it isn't about the Twins, it literally says that in the article. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

They call that a pennant.

 

As for the rest, just another example of how Fangraphs goes out of it's way to prove how little they actually understand baseball.

 

not at all. You literally think that guys that started out as fan bloggers, and now own one of the few successful sites that is 100% dedicated to baseball don't understand baseball?

wow.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Perhaps too far into the forest to see the trees.

With a magnifying glass: the number of micro level discrepancies between the Twins and the Dodgers is stunning.

High level: this happens in every sport nearly every post season. This is routine not an abnormality, if you take a step back.

 

not the NBA. The best teams win almost universally.

 

The question is simple.......who should we consider the champion, the best team during the season, or the team that wins the last playoff game? What's "right" about crowning someone as the best team during the year.

 

This is actually a complicated question......if you care about the question. If you don't care about "right" but entertainment, you might have a different answer.

 

There is, literally, no wrong answer here. It's an opinion of what you like best.....

[Mike Sixel]

 

Not sure about the kerfuffle over this article. He issued an early note that this could be about other teams, not just the Twins. He raised both sides of the issue, and asked for an opinion. And he made some interesting, although I am sure previously litigated arguments. Btw, what topic hasn't been previously litigated? Starting with playoff formats. We like math here. And simple math tells us that the more teams allowed in the playoffs, the lower the bar to get there. Regular seasons sort out the best teams, that's also math. The playoffs sort out the "hot" team. If you go back to the old MLB format, you likely get one of the best teams actually winning the WS. But in this day and age of the fickle fan, stadiums would empty in August. The second WC is to sell tickets, nothing more. While I can understand Sullivan's question about a WC winning the WS causing paralysis amongst FO types, I doubt it will happen. These are competitive people, prone to action, driven to succeed, and hoping to keep interest in the product. Stagnation does not sooth them. Basically his article was just an article, something to fill his quota. But, if he wanted to ask what's good for baseball, maybe these questions could have been asked? All the homeruns? Strikeouts? Endless pitching changes? Length of games? Effect of shifts on stats? And how the proliferation of stats amongst us common folk (fans) has altered our perception of the game and our favorite teams. Do these unlimited and endless discussions of stats alter how we feel about a team or a player. A fan and a MLB scout or FO type would seem have two different personnas. One is based on fanaticism and a certain disconnect from reality. The other should be a cold blooded analytical deal maker. It seems to me that the blurring of those lines makes it that much harder for some to accept that the Twins will indeed be a playoff team. The underlying numbers don't support that fact. So instead of looking at your favorite players and knowing they have as good a chance as anyone, you look at all the numbers that say they don't. And nothing ruins a good buzz like reality!

 

I would bet those articles get written in the off season, when there isn't much current to write about. The playoffs, though, are current news.

[gunnarthor]

Sullivan's post was the same type of click bait people tend to get riled up about Souhan for doing. If the Twins win the World Series then they deserved to win the World Series. 

[Mike Sixel]

He doesn't even take a side....he's literally asking a question.....on an opinion.

[prouster]

other than in the article he says he could use others an example, but the Twins are hte current one in the playoffs so he's using them? Nothing.....but he literally addresses that in the article.

 

Again, it isn't about the Twins, it literally says that in the article.

I don't really care that he uses the Twins to frame the discussion. My biggest critique is that it came out a day or two after a different article bemoaning the existence of the second wild card. That author (Sawchick I think) essentially argues that the second wild card is unfair, because it makes things more difficult for the first wild card and opens the possibility for a less than stellar team to win it all.

 

The reason I don't accept these arguments is that baseball is a game played by living, breathing humans. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to want the best to face the best. If the players want that to happen, though, they have to actually beat their "inferior" opponents. If they can't beat these teams, then why should they deserve to advance? Because they won more games over a different, albeit longer, arbitrary time period? I get no joy whatsoever out of crafting a system that *follows* data, and by that I mean a system that we tweak in order to match what the numbers are telling us. Where is the fun in actively pursuing this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy? The numbers should come after the game is played. The game should not exist in the service of algorithms.

 

So, yeah, I think there is joy in surprise. One of the pleasures of athletics is that sometimes teams and individuals rise up and do more than we thought them capable. That's what it's all about--testing the physical limits of our species under specific rules and conditions. I'd never replace that with a system that takes its marching orders from quantitative inputs.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sullivan's post was the same type of click bait people tend to get riled up about Souhan for doing. If the Twins win the World Series then they deserved to win the World Series. 

 

other than literally asking a question and not taking a side, other than being clear he was using this year as an example to ask the question, other than it was nothing like a Souhan article, sure.

[gunnarthor]

 

He doesn't even take a side....he's literally asking a question.....on an opinion.

"I'm not saying the Twins winning the WS is the worst thing ever, I'm just suggesting it as an opinion." 

Comment section destroys him.

"Gosh, why are people so riled up? It was an honest OPINION."

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yeah, I don’t get why people are upset about the article. I don’t think it’s very good because it doesn’t really say much but that’s no reason to be angry about it.

[nicksaviking]

He doesn't even take a side....he's literally asking a question.....on an opinion.

I don't see anyone here upset with his stance (or lack there of), simply the premise is lacking.

 

I love Fangraphs, but frankly, they have been shoving out a lot of stuff like this lately. I don't know how their organization works but it's starting to look like traditional print media in that I'd guess their contributors are contracted to come up with x amount of material in a given timeframe.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe this is some kind of outre passion project by Sullivan, but to me it reads like deadline filler. If that's part of the job, he's got to do it and I don't blame him. However I'd prefer fewer articles with more substanative ideas, if that's at all possible in an age where companies count the number of "clicks".

 

I mean, this article is way more Bleacher Report than the Fangraphs I first bookmarked.

[Dman]

 

I don't really care that he uses the Twins to frame the discussion. My biggest critique is that it came out a day or two after a different article bemoaning the existence of the second wild card. That author (Sawchick I think) essentially argues that the second wild card is unfair, because it makes things more difficult for the first wild card and opens the possibility for a less than stellar team to win it all.

The reason I don't accept these arguments is that baseball is a game played by living, breathing humans. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to want the best to face the best. If the players want that to happen, though, they have to actually beat their "inferior" opponents. If they can't beat these teams, then why should they deserve to advance? Because they won more games over a different, albeit longer, arbitrary time period? I get no joy whatsoever out of crafting a system that *follows* data, and by that I mean a system that we tweak in order to match what the numbers are telling us. Where is the fun in actively pursuing this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy? The numbers should come after the game is played. The game should not exist in the service of algorithms.

So, yeah, I think there is joy in surprise. One of the pleasures of athletics is that sometimes teams and individuals rise up and do more than we thought them capable. That's what it's all about--testing the physical limits of our species under specific rules and conditions. I'd never replace that with a system that takes its marching orders from quantitative inputs.

 

I tend to agree with you.  If the "math" supports that they are the best team because of season record then they should have no problem dispensing a wild card team.  Teams change and grow through a season.  A young team might be bad to start the season and be better at the end of the season.  A team might face injuries and get players back and just make the wild card.  There are lot's of reasons a team's season record might not be that great but the team is better at the end of season.

 

Granted the playoff format creates a different set of strengths and weaknesses for teams, but since all teams do not play each other an equal number of times it seems the playoffs are the best way to settle the answer of who is the best in a given year.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I don't really care that he uses the Twins to frame the discussion. My biggest critique is that it came out a day or two after a different article bemoaning the existence of the second wild card. That author (Sawchick I think) essentially argues that the second wild card is unfair, because it makes things more difficult for the first wild card and opens the possibility for a less than stellar team to win it all.

The reason I don't accept these arguments is that baseball is a game played by living, breathing humans. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to want the best to face the best. If the players want that to happen, though, they have to actually beat their "inferior" opponents. If they can't beat these teams, then why should they deserve to advance? Because they won more games over a different, albeit longer, arbitrary time period? I get no joy whatsoever out of crafting a system that *follows* data, and by that I mean a system that we tweak in order to match what the numbers are telling us. Where is the fun in actively pursuing this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy? The numbers should come after the game is played. The game should not exist in the service of algorithms.

So, yeah, I think there is joy in surprise. One of the pleasures of athletics is that sometimes teams and individuals rise up and do more than we thought them capable. That's what it's all about--testing the physical limits of our species under specific rules and conditions. I'd never replace that with a system that takes its marching orders from quantitative inputs.

 

he literally is asking a question, and not taking a side....

 

And, other leagues do it differently, to give more credit to the regular season. Travis thinks the post season should be more about the "best" team winning.....others, as Jeff points out, think that surprises are fun. 

 

This is a topic of great debate in circles that think about stuff like this. For example, how you run a pinewood derby.......do you reward the car that wins consistently all day, or do you have a playoff and reward teh car that holds up the best and is fastest in the last race? Which is most "right"? In pinewoood derbys, that might matter to be most fair to the people that make them. In the KBO, they've decided it is most fair to their teams, in MLB, they've decided fairness is less important.

 

It's literally an opinion on what you value more, or less, nothing more.

 

I really don't get the angst over this, frankly.

[nicksaviking]

One thing that isn't being taken into account is the difference between a playoff roster and the regular season roster. Yes the Twins have deficiencies, but the biggest is the back of the rotation, which doesn't matter in the post season as you only go three deep regularly and touch on the fourth in only a couple of games. The Twins 4-5 starters surely are worse than the other teams', I'd guess the Twins would close the gap a bit in run differential, other team metrics and actual W/L record if every team only went with 3.5 starters in the regular season.

 

I mean that was the exact situation in 1987. Your team is a whole lot better when Mike Smithson and Joe Niekro aren't starting 2/5 of your games.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Does anyone remember which FG writer said the Twins were the team furthest from contention last year?

 

I thought the statement was dumb at the time but now it’s absolutely idiotic.

[Vanimal46]

 

Does anyone remember which FG writer said the Twins were the team furthest from contention last year?

I thought the statement was dumb at the time but now it’s absolutely idiotic.

 

From August 6, 2016:

Elton: I’m trying to think which team might be the farthest away from contending. It feels like it might be the Twins.

 

10:50
Jeff Sullivan: Probably the Twins but it might be the Reds

[Mike Sixel]

 

From August 6, 2016:

Elton: I’m trying to think which team might be the farthest away from contending. It feels like it might be the Twins.

 

10:50
Jeff Sullivan: Probably the Twins but it might be the Reds

 

pretty sure I said Padres and Reds was a better answer then....

[Brock Beauchamp]

From August 6, 2016:

 

Elton: I’m trying to think which team might be the farthest away from contending. It feels like it might be the Twins.

 

10:50

Jeff Sullivan: Probably the Twins but it might be the Reds

Thanks. I suspected it was Sullivan but wasn’t sure.

[Craig Arko]

“Baseball’s best story.”

 

https://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2017/09/minnesota-twins-are-baseballs-best-story/

[Pardon My Dinger]

 

“Baseball’s best story.”

https://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2017/09/minnesota-twins-are-baseballs-best-story/

And that's coming from an Indians die hard. Love that  guy, by the way. 

[prouster]

he literally is asking a question, and not taking a side....

 

And, other leagues do it differently, to give more credit to the regular season. Travis thinks the post season should be more about the "best" team winning.....others, as Jeff points out, think that surprises are fun.

 

This is a topic of great debate in circles that think about stuff like this. For example, how you run a pinewood derby.......do you reward the car that wins consistently all day, or do you have a playoff and reward teh car that holds up the best and is fastest in the last race? Which is most "right"? In pinewoood derbys, that might matter to be most fair to the people that make them. In the KBO, they've decided it is most fair to their teams, in MLB, they've decided fairness is less important.

 

It's literally an opinion on what you value more, or less, nothing more.

 

I really don't get the angst over this, frankly.

I know Sullivan isn't making a claim. The "good or bad" frame makes for a stupid question, though. Everything is both good and bad. Literally everything. It's a question high schoolers ask when writing crappy essays.

 

I'm responding more to the Sawchick piece, which adds some necessary context to Sullivan's. There has been some pearl clutching lately at Fangraphs over the validity of "inferior" teams making post season runs. To me, the general mindset seems to be that the game should more closely follow the models. That's not fun. It's a perverse corporatization of spectatorship. I don't want data driven viewing. I want to be dazzled by the unexpected. I want the game to take me places I haven't been before. I want the numbers to be useful inasmuch as they tell us what we might reasonably expect. I don't want them to organize events that have not yet occurred. That's my opinion.

[prouster]

he literally is asking a question, and not taking a side....

 

And, other leagues do it differently, to give more credit to the regular season. Travis thinks the post season should be more about the "best" team winning.....others, as Jeff points out, think that surprises are fun.

 

This is a topic of great debate in circles that think about stuff like this. For example, how you run a pinewood derby.......do you reward the car that wins consistently all day, or do you have a playoff and reward teh car that holds up the best and is fastest in the last race? Which is most "right"? In pinewoood derbys, that might matter to be most fair to the people that make them. In the KBO, they've decided it is most fair to their teams, in MLB, they've decided fairness is less important.

 

It's literally an opinion on what you value more, or less, nothing more.

 

I really don't get the angst over this, frankly.

And for the record, I'm not mad about either article. That would be silly. My angst, as you put it, is about the worldview that allows someone to say the models forecasting events that have not yet occurred are somehow more true than the events that disrupt those models. This is about more than sports for me. It's about pigeonholing human behavior into easily predictable categories, then crying foul when there is a deviation.

[Vanimal46]

Ben
12:10 On opening day, if I had told you that Twins would make postseason, Brewers would finish 10 over .500, Mets 20+ under .500, Giants worst record in baseball, and that neither the Padres or White Sox would be in last place, which would have shocked you most?

 

Dave Cameron
12:10 Probably the Twins making the postseason.

 

Doug
12:11 I've been driving the Byron Buxton hype bus for 3 years now. With all of his skills would you say he is a top 5 overall player in 5 years or have I drunk too much of the kool-aid?

 

Dave Cameron
12:12 I still don't really buy the bat.

He's a great defender, but I think a league average wRC+ is a success for him.

Elite D with average offense is still really valuable, but not elite.

 

Raindog
12:17 Did the Twins win the wild card, or did every single other ok-not-good team in the AL lose their way into a losing record?

 

Dave Cameron
12:17 Both

 

Xolo
12:18 Do you think a Twins World Series victory would be good or bad for baseball?

 

Dave Cameron
12:18 Was the Royals WS good or bad for baseball? They're basically the same team, same kind of market size.

12:19 It's good that the playoffs are unpredictable. Do you want the worst team in the postseason winning that often? No. Ever? Yes.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I know Sullivan isn't making a claim. The "good or bad" frame makes for a stupid question, though. Everything is both good and bad. Literally everything. It's a question high schoolers ask when writing crappy essays.

I'm responding more to the Sawchick piece, which adds some necessary context to Sullivan's. There has been some pearl clutching lately at Fangraphs over the validity of "inferior" teams making post season runs. To me, the general mindset seems to be that the game should more closely follow the models. That's not fun. It's a perverse corporatization of spectatorship. I don't want data driven viewing. I want to be dazzled by the unexpected. I want the game to take me places I haven't been before. I want the numbers to be useful inasmuch as they tell us what we might reasonably expect. I don't want them to organize events that have not yet occurred. That's my opinion.

 

that's a very fair stance........

 

say you are running a pinewood derby race for kids. 

 

One car wins every race by huge margins, like 7 races. Then we come to the "finals", against cars that have run slower every single race.....and that fast car loses a wheel while leading in the final.....it was clearly the best car for 2-3 hours and every single race, until the last race. Was it the best car? Was the car that it beat twice, and was slower in every race, but that didn't lose a wheel, the "best car"? Why even have a finals, why not just judge the cars based on performance on, say, 7 races. 

 

What if the 5th fastest car races against the top 4 in a heat, and is eliminated, but 20 slower cars get to keep going?

 

How you run a league/race/competition is actually something you have to think about. How you determine "best" matters. 

 

Is the KBO wrong for giving more weight to the regular season?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Ben
12:10 On opening day, if I had told you that Twins would make postseason, Brewers would finish 10 over .500, Mets 20+ under .500, Giants worst record in baseball, and that neither the Padres or White Sox would be in last place, which would have shocked you most?

 

Dave Cameron
12:10 Probably the Twins making the postseason.

 

Doug
12:11 I've been driving the Byron Buxton hype bus for 3 years now. With all of his skills would you say he is a top 5 overall player in 5 years or have I drunk too much of the kool-aid?

 

Dave Cameron
12:12 I still don't really buy the bat.

He's a great defender, but I think a league average wRC+ is a success for him.

Elite D with average offense is still really valuable, but not elite.

 

Hmmmm. Not sure he has the formula correct. If Buxton runs like this, and plays D like this, and hits with a 100 wRC+.....he'd generate around 5 fWAR or so.....that's in elite territory.

 

He has said, I think, that Buxton will be in the top 50 trade value next time, probably.

[twinsnorth49]

Scrap the season and just give the trophy to who the models consider to be the best team. 

 

Sounds fun.

[Vanimal46]

 

Hmmmm. Not sure he has the formula correct. If Buxton runs like this, and plays D like this, and hits with a 100 wRC+.....he'd generate around 5 fWAR or so.....that's in elite territory.

 

He has said, I think, that Buxton will be in the top 50 trade value next time, probably.

 

Yep, he definitely said in another chat (maybe last week?) that Buxton is top 50, pushing top 25 on his trade value series.