Fangraphs (and other national publications) on the Twins

[Mike Sixel]

 

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

 

Sounds fun.

 

except that isn't the argument anyone is making. not. one. person.

[Mike Sixel]

also from today:

 

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.

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dave-cameron-fangraphs-chat-92717/

[Brock Beauchamp]

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.

Yeah, his math seemed a bit off there. I’m surprised he’s still so low on Buxton’s bat, though. His wrc+ will likely end up ~93-95.

[twinsnorth49]

 

except that isn't the argument anyone is making. not. one. person.

I literally just made it, that's one. 

[gunnarthor]

 

except that isn't the argument anyone is making. not. one. person.

You're really having trouble with context and sarcasm.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

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.

There you go. I was having a hard time nailing down what I didn't like about the article and that's it. He doesn't really say anything of substance and poses a dumb question.

 

It's like a bad op-ed piece you see in a local newspaper.

[gunnarthor]

I thought this was interesting. Here's Buxton's slash line for every 15 games throughout the season. I picked 15 because his awful slump to start the season was 15 games and two periods are roughly a month.

 

1 .082/.135/.122 

2 .216/.358/.391

3 .268/.362/.341

4 .224/.255/.408

5 .178/.275/.178

6 .311/.367/.422

7 .370/.400/.704

8 .286/.333/.571

9 .304/.371/.571

 

He's added power during the season and, for the most part, done a decent job of getting on base and with his speed and base running, on base is a big one. I dunno. I think he could probably hit something like .280/.350/.450 or better over a full season. He's hit .276/.339/.455 since those first 15 games.

[twinsfanstreif]

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

 

Sounds fun.

College football did that for years and it was stupid and horribly bias. In fact now that they've expanded it to 4 it's still stupid. The second wild card is good for the sport, it adds extra interest and allows for more parody. The greatest post season is March madness with 64 teams and rarely do the extreme underdogs win, when they do though it's pretty special

[Mike Sixel]

 

You're really having trouble with context and sarcasm.  

 

it's really hard to spot sarcasm on this board sometimes....really hard......but seeing the poster, I should have been smart enough to figure it out, yes.

[Mike Sixel]

 

There you go. I was having a hard time nailing down what I didn't like about the article and that's it. He doesn't really say anything of substance and poses a dumb question.

 

It's like a bad op-ed piece you see in a local newspaper.

 

if you've ever run a competition for children, you'd know it wasn't a dumb question at all.

 

if you've ever started a sports league, and can look at what different leagues do, it's not a dumb question at all.

 

edit: also see the NCAA football discussion about how to build playoffs, or not....

[twinsnorth49]

 

College football did that for years and it was stupid and horribly bias. In fact now that they've expanded it to 4 it's still stupid. The second wild card is good for the sport, it adds extra interest and allows for more parody. The greatest post season is March madness with 64 teams and rarely do the extreme underdogs win, when they do though it's pretty special

Agreed, I was kidding around. Things were getting a bit testy, I'll use a sarcasm emoji next time. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Agreed, I was kidding around. Things were getting a bit testy, I'll use a sarcasm emoji next time. 

 

heh, like I said, I missed it.

 

I didn't feel the testiness, though, until I stupidly responded to you....apologies.

[Jham]

heh, like I said, I missed it.

 

I didn't feel the testiness, though, until I stupidly responded to you....apologies.

Or, hear me out, have EA sports just run a season long simulation. Broadcast the simulations on FSN. Go to the game thread, and watch the posters argue balls and strikes on the automated strike zone with predetermined conclusions. Crown an e-champion.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

if you've ever run a competition for children, you'd know it wasn't a dumb question at all.

 

if you've ever started a sports league, and can look at what different leagues do, it's not a dumb question at all.

 

edit: also see the NCAA football discussion about how to build playoffs, or not....

He has no opinion, he doesn't back up either side of the "debate" with any real information, it's a pointless question that's entirely subjective.

 

In that context, it seems like a pretty dumb question to me.

[drivlikejehu]

There's an obviously legitimate question of how many teams should make the post-season . . . I don't understand how that question can be dismissed given that MLB has wrestled with it for decades. 

 

You can argue about semantics on anything, or frame the issue in different ways, but it's an important subject that goes to the core of a league's structure and competition.

[amjgt]

What would MLB define as something that is good for baseball?

 

More revenue, right? (which roughly translates into more people interested)

 

That would have been an interesting angle for the article... analyze the revenue increase (or decrease) for a season or two after the "worst" playoff teams get to the world series compared to the "best" teams. You could even get a little more granular and do that same revenue analysis for the bottom 10 teams, which would show you if the success of the underdog means an increase in revenue for the teams that will be the biggest underdogs the following seasons.

[amjgt]

 

There's an obviously legitimate question of how many teams should make the post-season . . . I don't understand how that question can be dismissed given that MLB has wrestled with it for decades. 

 

You can argue about semantics on anything, or frame the issue in different ways, but it's an important subject that goes to the core of a league's structure and competition.

 

I think the argument lies with 4 or 5 teams. I mean it has to be at least 3 because there are 3 divisions and highly unbalanced schedules. 

 

You cant give the best team a bye past an entire series, so they need an opponent. I believe the setup that we have now is the best way to balance keeping interest up and also providing the best team with an advantage (while at the same time providing the worst teams with a disadvantage)

[Brock Beauchamp]

What would MLB define as something that is good for baseball?

 

More revenue, right? (which roughly translates into more people interested)

 

That would have been an interesting angle for the article... analyze the revenue increase (or decrease) for a season or two after the "worst" playoff teams get to the world series compared to the "best" teams. You could even get a little more granular and do that same revenue analysis for the bottom 10 teams, which would show you if the success of the underdog means an increase in revenue for the teams that will be the biggest underdogs the following seasons.

Now see, I’d like to read that article.

[Mike Sixel]

An article on Dozier going the other way this year....

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/brian-dozier-is-doing-his-impossible/

[twinsfanstreif]

Agreed, I was kidding around. Things were getting a bit testy, I'll use a sarcasm emoji next time.

 

I got your sarcasm, I was just making a further point, I think we are in agreement

[twinsfanstreif]

An article on Dozier going the other way this year....

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/brian-dozier-is-doing-his-impossible/

Very interesting, I had not noticed but I was also not really looking for stuff like this. It looks like Dozier has reinvented himself and it's working

[Mike Sixel]

Another article on Buxton and his improved defense:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/byron-buxton-explains-how-he-catches-everything/

 

[jimmer]

 

Another article on Buxton and his improved defense:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/byron-buxton-explains-how-he-catches-everything/

'Buxton said it was about a year and a half ago that Twins officials approached him with Statcast data to illustrate how he might better take advantage of his athletic gifts to save runs. Most players, of course, are likely to embrace the advice of coaching staff; the addition of cold, hard, unfeeling data, though, makes that advice even more persuasive.'

 

'We’ve seen Statcast tools help inform hitters on how to improve swings and approaches. Buxton says it can also help defensive play. And Buxton’s testimony is important as he has emerged as the top outfield defender in the game this season, and he is a significant reason why the Twins have enjoyed a defensive turnaround (-46 DRS in 2016 to +11 this season). Buxton and his glove are reasons the Twins are on the cusp of a postseason appearance.'

 

Those math guys and all their nerdy worthless info...

 

BTW, I wonder who will be the next FANGRAPHS writer hired by a team to work in the FO?  Pretty soon, if Fangraphs loses too much more talent to silly organizations who think these writers know enough about baseball to help their organization, they might get desperate and hire Harold Reynolds or Jon Heyman to write to there.  Nahhh, they'd never stoop that low.

[AlwaysinModeration]

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.....

We could become soccer fans?

[Vanimal46]

12:02
John Edwards: Twins are in the postseason. What does this mean moving forward? Should we expect them to be in “Win Now” mode for the next few seasons?

 

12:03
Eno Sarris: I bet they run it like Cleveland with Derek Falvey in there. hope to have the young guys do it with a slow ramp up of free agent signings. Doubt they trade anything under control for a win now piece.

 

12:07
Oddball Herrera: How fair would it be to say that if the Rockies beat AZ, few will take notice, but if the Twins beat the Yankees, the internet will be buried for days in ‘fix the wild card’ articles?

 

12:08
Eno Sarris: I was going to say ‘yeah but the Yankees are that much better than the Twins’ but then I looked and six games separate both pairs. i’m changing my mind a bit: what if upsets are good?

 

 

[USAFChief]

 

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.

Agree with every word, particularly the bolded.

 

Well said.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Agree with every word, particularly the bolded.

 

Well said.

 

Ya, he never said that. Neither did Travis. And, the KBO disagrees with you. As does European Soccer. It's not about models at all, it's actually about actual wins and losses mattering more. The exact opposite of models, even.

[prouster]

Ya, he never said that. Neither did Travis. And, the KBO disagrees with you. As does European Soccer. It's not about models at all, it's actually about actual wins and losses mattering more. The exact opposite of models, even.

No, but the latter definitely implied it. His argument is literally that the WC1 team should have an even greater mathematical advantage over WC2 (i.e. MLB should intervene by manufacturing conditions more likely to produce a specific outcome). To create a system that further benefits an already "better" team would be to actively organize reality around a predetermined outcome. Yes, this involves actual wins and losses, but it stems from the notion that WC2 doesn't really deserve to advance under the existing rules, despite winning enough games to earn that chance. With that, wins and losses already matter. If a team doesn't want to play in a do-or-die scenario, they have the option of winning their division. I just disagree with your reading here.

 

And I hardly see what Korean ball and soccer have to do with anything.

[Mike Sixel]

 

No, but the latter definitely implied it. I just disagree with your reading here.

 

No, he asked if a team that doesn't win as much in the regular season winning the playoffs is good or bad for the sport. Nothing about models. I just re-read it, where does he talk about models at all?

[prouster]

No, he asked if a team that doesn't win as much in the regular season winning the playoffs is good or bad for the sport. Nothing about models. I just re-read it, where does he talk about models at all?

Sorry, I'm referring to Sawchick.