Article: The Twins Are Going to Win 80 Games in 2017

[Platoon]

IF I thought that either the SP or the RP would show up I could possibly squeeze 80 out of the Twins. But that's really a big IF. That considered, the best I can do is 73-75. I don't think they will lose 90 again, as I think the postion players will have an uptick. But the lack of defense in the IF is alarming, and frankly I am not convinced Molitor is adept at putting players in a position to excel. He spends too much time putting square pegs in round holes.

[TheLeviathan]

 

A team that is close to the playoffs can't risk living with the floor that duo provides. A team who is likely to win 75-80 games -- or fewer, if you like -- can. 

 

You're moving the goal posts around.  Your article says "there shouldn't be any reason they aren't a .500 team" (A clear suggestion of an 81 win team with a window to be better than that, hence "close to the playoffs") and then respond to my comment by giving a range that doesn't even include the number you cite in the article. 

 

At times in this article, and certainly in the title and at the conclusion, you seem to be suggesting this team is going to be close to the playoffs.   So you can't just brush aside the fact that they are also about to start a left side of the infield and say it's no big deal because they won't be close.  So I guess I'm curious - what is it?  Is it a team you are predicting to be 75-80 or a team that's close to the playoffs?  You seem to want it to be both.

[Brandon Warne]

 

You're moving the goal posts around.  Your article says "there shouldn't be any reason they aren't a .500 team" (A clear suggestion of an 81 win team with a window to be better than that, hence "close to the playoffs") and then respond to my comment by giving a range that doesn't even include the number you cite in the article. 

 

At times in this article, and certainly in the title and at the conclusion, you seem to be suggesting this team is going to be close to the playoffs.   So you can't just brush aside the fact that they are also about to start a left side of the infield and say it's no big deal because they won't be close.  So I guess I'm curious - what is it?  Is it a team you are predicting to be 75-80 or a team that's close to the playoffs?  You seem to want it to be both.

 

It took 89 wins to reach the playoffs as a Wild Card last year. 80 wins isn't really close to that. In fact, one-third of the American League (five teams) had at least 80 wins but didn't reach the postseason. 

[Halsey Hall]

 

The only significant off-season roster moves were replacing Suzuki with Castro and letting Plouffe walk. That seems like fairly minimal improvement at best, so I'm not quite sure how the team is expected to improve by 21 games over last season. If the young guys all take another step forward I could see the possibility of winning 70 games as a top end expectation.

Just getting rid of Plouffe is worth 10 wins right there.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It took 89 wins to reach the playoffs as a Wild Card last year. 80 wins isn't really close to that. In fact, one-third of the American League (five teams) had at least 80 wins but didn't reach the postseason. 

 

It seems like you might be playing fast and loose with what "close" means then.  Is 84 wins close enough to 89?  How about 86 like the Tigers?    If you think this team "should" be an 81 win team, those outcomes should be well within your expectations.

 

And if you think they "should" be an 81 win team, perhaps they should be worried about the left side of their infield.  I agree, if they are some 70-75 win team, no worries.  But you're arguing a more aggressive stance than that, one I would argue should care about that side of the infield.

 

[gil4]

 

... so I really think they need to move Dozier and/or Santana to get multiple upside arms and I doubt they would do that if they were semi-competitive.

1st thought - we will hopefully move Santana but there's no way we are getting anything for him.

2nd thought - oops, wrong Santana.  (I just saw the quote about his batting average being ouch and it stuck in my mind.)

 

It would have to be a pretty good haul to give up that Santana.

[IndianaTwin]

Count me in as one of the optimists. I'm not sure I'm an 80-win optimist yet, but...  

 

I start with the assumption that last year's unlucky team was more like a 63-65 win team. People also seem to think that the starting pitching hasn't improved, but I think it could be much better than a year ago. We tend to think that only five guys make up a rotation, but that's rarely the case. Last year, for example, it was an 11-man batch that started games. We started with five, some of them sucked, and there were no options to go to. But look at these lists side-by-side. The 2016 guys are listed in order of appearance:

 

2016 starters (number of starts)                            2017 options
Santana (30)                                                              Santana

Gibson (25)                                                                Gibson

Hughes (11)                                                               Hughes

Milone (12)                                                                 Berrios

Nolasco (21)                                                               Santiago

Duffey (26)                                                                 Vogelsong
Berrios (14)                                                                May
Meyer (1)                                                                    Haley

Dean (9)                                                                     Duffey
Albers (2)                                                                    Mejia

Santiago (11)                                                             Tepisch

__________                                                               Stewart

__________                                                                                  Gonsalves
__________                                                                                  Jay
__________                                                                                  Romero
__________                                                                                 Jorge

 

(If anyone can tell me how to use tabs, I'll make that easier to read.)

 

I like the list on the right a whole better than the list on the left. For starters:

• Santana was really good last year, but could handle a few more starts than 30 (Career ERA+ of 103, with 110 over the past four years).
• Think of Santiago for 32 starts regressing upward to his career average (ERA+ of 103) instead of 21 starts for Nolasco and 11 from Santiago in what looks like the worst 11-start stretch of his career.
• Swap the composite of 26 starts from 2016 Milone and rookie Berrios for 26+ starts of Berrios as a second-year player showing the ups and downs one might expect. Imagine those 26 starts net an ERA+ of 95 instead of about 63 from Milone/Berrios.

If those three things happen, none of which seem like an outlandish stretch, look at the long list of guys remaining to fill two slots in the rotation over the course of the year. There are several guys (Gibson, Hughes, Vogelsong, Duffey) who have been good (sometimes really good) for long stretches at a time. There are a number of others who are not far behind (May, Mejia, Tepisch, etc.). And there are several names that will certainly start the season in the minors, but who could pitch their way up by the end of the year. So...

• Don't give Duffey 26 starts if he's turning in an ERA+ of 65. Try someone else.
• Don't give Gibson 25 starts with an ERA+ of 81. Try someone else.
• Don't give Hughes 11 starts with an ERA+ of 70 and Dean with 9 at 67. Try someone else.
• Give Vogelsong the chance to be the ERA+ of 91 in his second career. Or even better. But if he doesn't show it early, try someone else.

If they commit to relatively short leashes on ineffective starters and to playing the hands as they are hot (okay, lukewarm), and with adding Castro's defense over Suzuki, I could see this as a rotation that approaches league average. Think ERA+ of even 95 compared to last year's 82. Maybe even higher, if you consider that the Santana/Santiago/Berrios group would represent the majority of the starts and could easily be around 103-105 in net (Santana 110+, Santiago 103, and Berrios 95, all weighted toward Santana).

 

Pair that with an offense that was league average last year despite being the second-youngest in the league when at bats are weighted by age. The lineup should generally be better as young potential develops. There are a couple of guys who have the potential to be significantly better than a year ago (Sano, Buxton, maybe Kepler, Arcia or Park) and not many candidates for regression downward. Again, playing the hot hands would mean more 2016Vargas-like at bats and fewer 2016Park-like ones. That sounds like an offense that I expect to be somewhat above average, say an OPS+ of 105 compared to last year's 99. 

 

Wait a minute. An ERA+ of 95 and an OPS+ of 105. That would probably get us near 80 wins.

 

Maybe I'm an 80-win optimist after all. 

 

 

 

[Brandon Warne]

 

It seems like you might be playing fast and loose with what "close" means then.  Is 84 wins close enough to 89?  How about 86 like the Tigers?    If you think this team "should" be an 81 win team, those outcomes should be well within your expectations.

 

And if you think they "should" be an 81 win team, perhaps they should be worried about the left side of their infield.  I agree, if they are some 70-75 win team, no worries.  But you're arguing a more aggressive stance than that, one I would argue should care about that side of the infield.

 

Look I get what you're saying, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on specifics. All good.

[WiesbadenDAN]

Also to consider, the White Sox, Royals and Tigers all have great potential to be bad teams. A team could still be fairly bad and still win 80 simply by playing nearly 60 games against poor division rivals.

Because of this factor alone this team will have to win 75 games to be considered a ship heading in the right direction, anything just under that will be deceiving..IMO. And because the Twins will be playing in what might be a significantly weaker division, adding some minor player improvement, and couple of lucky breaks, 80 wins should not be considered overly optimistic for a team heading in the right direction.

 

My number is 75 because of these factors. Anything less is failure in my eyes.

[jimmer]

 

Because of this factor alone this team will have to win 75 games to be considered a ship heading in the right direction, anything just under that will be deceiving..IMO. And because the Twins will be playing in what might be a significantly weaker division, adding some minor player improvement, and couple of lucky breaks, 80 wins should not be considered overly optimistic for a team heading in the right direction.

My number is 75 because of these factors. Anything less is failure in my eyes.

At least two of those three teams were bad last year as well (Royals and White Sox).  We went 4-15 against the Royals and 7-12 against the White Sox.  We went 4-15 against Detroit too.  If we go even .500 against them, they have a losing record too.

[beckmt]

I believe that one service that did analysis claimed the Twins should have been a 71 win team last year.  That is a long way from 59.  Assuming some improvement I am looking like most of the rest between 75 and 80 wins. PItching shouldn't be as bad and hitting could be way better even close to elite status(if Dozier is not traded and only regresses slightly, with big upsides from 2-3 of Sano, Rosario,Kepler, Buxton, Polonco.  If Dozier is traded not so likely, but defense would be better plugging in either Escobar or Vielma to SS. 

Way to early to tell what final roster will be so this number could well change. A couple of upper end bullpen types would make a big difference, but do not know what Twins are seeing from Perkins or if the new FO thinks some of the younger relievers are ready. 

[nytwinsfan]

The number one most important thing imo is to have May be a starter again (assuming he's healthy).  Move Hughes to the bullpen this year until it is clear (if it is indeed true) that he has recovered his health. Also move Duffey to the bullpen, where his fastball/curve combo should play way way up. 

 

Starting Rotation:

Santanta

Gibson

May

Berrios

Santiago (with Mejia ready to be #5 if Santiago stumbles, which I think he may).

 

Is that good enough pitching to make the Wild Card game? Of course not. But it is enough to win 75 games if the young hitters continue to progress. Also, this obviously assumes Dozier isn't traded for pitching help.

[nicksaviking]

 

At least two of those three teams were bad last year as well (Royals and White Sox).  We went 4-15 against the Royals and 7-12 against the White Sox.  We went 4-15 against Detroit too.  If we go even .500 against them, they have a losing record too.

 

Right, but if those are going to be bad teams, each of those records could be flipped. And I'm not even trying to say it would make the Twins a good team, just that the record of a bad team is likely quite unpredictable as unpredictability and inconsistency is a hallmark of a bad team.

[Doomtints]

Masterfully written. 80 wins is a nice number to get people talking and debating and clicking. If you had said 90 wins, people would have just dismissed it without any debate.

 

The Twins do not have the talent to be within shouting distance of .500. We all know it. Best case is that half of the question marks on the roster perform well next year, still leaving half a dozen holes on the roster where the players did not perform well enough. 

 

70 wins would be a gigantic year-over-year swing. With the Twins not making many roster changes so far, 80 is out of the question.

[Doomtints]

 

 

I believe that one service that did analysis claimed the Twins should have been a 71 win team last year.  That is a long way from 59.  Assuming some improvement I am looking like most of the rest between 75 and 80 wins. P

 

Regardless of whether or not anyone thinks the 2016 Twins were worth 71 wins, they were still nowhere near that. "Some improvement" over their 2016 reality would be between 65 and 70 wins. 75-80 wins would require several player additions that did not happen.

 

However, if anything, the pitching staff has taken several steps back since the general mood this time last year, as has the hitting. We need to understand that the Twins, so far, look like they could very well repeat their 100 loss season.

 

If I were a betting man, I would put money down on them having 100 losses over them having 80 wins. High optimism could allow a prediction of around 70 wins, but that's about as much as is reasonable seeing as this is the same team as last year.

 

[Physics Guy]

If I were a betting man, I would put money down on them having 100 losses over them having 80 wins. High optimism could allow a prediction of around 70 wins, but that's about as much as is reasonable seeing as this is the same team as last year.

You are certainly entitled to your "doomtinted" opinion, but I don't happen to share your particular reality. I don't think it takes high optimism to see 70 wins. You propose 100 losses as more likely than 80 wins. The midpoint between those is 71 wins. They won 59 last year after 83 the previous year. What's the midpoint? Hmmm, that would be 71 wins. I'd say low 70's would be about right and wouldn't require much optimism at all. Any type of improvement from the young hitters and a return to sanity in the rotation makes 80 wins a possibility. At least that's what I see through my rose-tinted glasses

[darin617]

 

I wrote for Cold Omaha today that I think the Twins will win 80 games this season. Discussion, as always, appreciated: 

 

http://coldomaha.com/2017/twins/the-minnesota-twins-will-win-80-games-in-2017/

Is that counting spring training games?

[DocBauer]

First, a very interesting and enjoyable article. And it's also nice to see someone not seemingly automatically going the doom and gloom route.

 

Second, I agree with Thrylos it's a little early for predictions because I think there is roster tinkering still coming. I will honestly be shocked if we don't see at least 2 additions before ST, a RP and an OF most likely. A quality bounce back candidate that could have "keeping" value as well as flip possibilities, and a quality veteran role player, if not the BIG BAT some have pleaded for.

 

Third, I am a bit old fashioned and still believe the game...all games...are still determined by actual play and not simply statistics and metrics. But I am also intelligent enough and open mined enough to appreciate and "get" modern measurements. I know that sounds like talking out of both sides of my mouth, but I'm not. I believe the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. That being said, if you read various reference materials, the Twins were better than they should have been in 2015, and not as bad as they were in 2016. Again, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

 

Fourth, this game of baseball is HARD. There is a reason for development in the various milb levels before success at the ML level. Guys who skip to or almost straight to the majors are generational players. Most quality, all star, and even future hall of farmers still spend time in the minors, and even struggle at times when first reaching the show! I just have to roll my eyes at times when I read how someone is a bust because he didn't set the world on fire initially.

 

All that being said, I will not predict the 2017 Twins being a playoff team. But I also feel there is enough here to believe 80 wins is not that far fetched. (Personally, I'm saying 70-75 with a shot at 80) There ARE holes and questions and deficiencies to be sure. But there is an interesting nucleus here to work with.

 

Rosario, Buxton and Kepler have the talent and makings of a talented, exciting and dangerous OF than can play very good defense. They all have been top rated prospects, they all have shown real flashes, and while there is growth needed, there is real potential. I still feel a quality 4th OF would help a lot.

 

Dozier is a really, really good ML ballplayer. Polanco has a lot of real potential, even if there is uncertainty how well he can or can't play SS on a daily basis. Escobar has shown how solid he can be, and hopefully will be again in 2017. Sano is a future stud who only has to be solid at 3B defensively, and has the talent to be so.

 

I feel catching will be solid and improved, especially if a proper platoon is established. 1B/DH is a bit hazy, but there is at least some potential there as well.

 

I still advocate a veteran RP signing that could pay a nice dividend, especially with young arms on the way but not there yet, and I really like Chargois, Pressly, Duffey and maybe Haley there with Rogers.

 

Yes there is real concern about the rotation. And no, this is not a WS contending rotation by any stretch of the imagination. But we'really not talking about that for 2017. We'really talking about a rebuilding team getting better. Santana has been a quality ML SP for some time now, coming off a fine season. Why do so many predict his arm will simply fall off in '17? Santiago is nothing special, but he's actually had a solid career thus far, went to an all star game, pitched well before he joined the Twins, and closed the year strong for the Twins. But he's just lousy because he pitched poorly when he first joined our team? Gibson was solid in both 2014 and 2015 and looked to still have room for at least some improvement. But an injury filled season on a last place team means he's now a bump and can't rebound? Top prospect Berrios had a rough introduction. And? It happens. See point #4 above. May still has real potential. His only "fault" was being handled extremely poorly by management desperate for young SP arms and failing to let him potentially actually be one!

 

Sorry I'm rambling and getting long. But this is not just a scrub team devoid of talent with nothing but scrubs manning various positions and roles. Do a few things have to fall in place for this team to win 80 games? Absolutely. But what really has to happen is for the talented younger players to take a step forward...possibly a couple solid FA additions...and a couple veterans to just perform to ability. Now, a huge run of injuries or absolute incompetence by the staff is a different story.

[King]

 

I wrote for Cold Omaha today that I think the Twins will win 80 games this season. Discussion, as always, appreciated: 

 

http://coldomaha.com/2017/twins/the-minnesota-twins-will-win-80-games-in-2017/

The team currently projects to win 74 so give or take some random variance 80 isn't out of the question. 

It's possible that they win 80 games. I don't think they do it. But I can't wait to find out. Spring training is just around the corner.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I believe that one service that did analysis claimed the Twins should have been a 71 win team last year. 

It was Fangraphs' BaseRuns, which removes sequencing and attempts to adjust for team good/bad luck.

 

The Twins were extremely "lucky" in 2015. They were the exact opposite in 2016.

[Doomtints]

 

You are certainly entitled to your "doomtinted" opinion, but I don't happen to share your particular reality. I don't think it takes high optimism to see 70 wins. You propose 100 losses as more likely than 80 wins. The midpoint between those is 71 wins. They won 59 last year after 83 the previous year. What's the midpoint? Hmmm, that would be 71 wins. I'd say low 70's would be about right and wouldn't require much optimism at all. Any type of improvement from the young hitters and a return to sanity in the rotation makes 80 wins a possibility. At least that's what I see through my rose-tinted glasses

 

I'm surprised you would call my opinion negative when my opinion is that I think 70 wins is a reasonable expectation and you seem to think the same thing.

 

My point was that if you are going to go to extremes (100 losses v. 80 wins), 100 losses is more likely.

[Doomtints]

 

It was Fangraphs' BaseRuns, which removes sequencing and attempts to adjust for team good/bad luck.

 

The Twins were extremely "lucky" in 2015. They were the exact opposite in 2016.

 

I ran some numbers over the course of the season last year.  Baseruns v. Pythagorean v. a system I made.  Baseruns and Pythagorean had roughly equal accuracy.  

 

What was the Pythagorean prediction for last year?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

So then I will pose a similar question to some of you:

 

How deep into the season will the Twins maintain a .500 record? (i.e., roughly an 80-win pace)?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I ran some numbers over the course of the season last year.  Baseruns v. Pythagorean v. a system I made.  Baseruns and Pythagorean had roughly equal accuracy.  

 

What was the Pythagorean prediction for last year?

65-97. Not as extreme a split but still significant.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

So then I will pose a similar question to some of you:

How deep into the season will the Twins maintain a .500 record? (i.e., roughly an 80-win pace)?

They won't. I expect they'll spend the entire year under .500, occasionally flirting with it during hot streaks.

 

Again, this is assuming they'll reach 80 wins, which I do not believe will happen.

 

80 wins isn't out of the question but it requires significant advancement/rebound of at least 75% of the following players:

 

Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Rosario, Berrios, Gibson, May, Polanco, Hughes.

 

That's a mighty tall order. It's not impossible, but it is highly unlikely.

[nicksaviking]

 

 

 

The Twins do not have the talent to be within shouting distance of .500. We all know it. Best case is that half of the question marks on the roster perform well next year, still leaving half a dozen holes on the roster where the players did not perform well enough. 

 

 

Plenty of teams don't have the talent to be within shouting distance of .500 yet somehow find themselves in that situation by the end of the year. See Twins: 2015.

[nicksaviking]

 

They won't. I expect they'll spend the entire year under .500, occasionally flirting with it during hot streaks.

 

Again, this is assuming they'll reach 80 wins, which I do not believe will happen.

 

80 wins isn't out of the question but it requires significant advancement/rebound of at least 75% of the following players:

 

Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Rosario, Berrios, Gibson, May, Polanco, Hughes.

 

That's a mighty tall order. It's not impossible, but it is highly unlikely.

 

 

I beg to differ, the Twins are going to beat the Royals on opening day. 1-0 baby!

 

I agree that there isn't any reason not to expect improvement from those players listed. Even without that, the Twins are going to have a pretty easy schedule if KC, CHW and DET aren't any good. KC and CHW aren't and I'm predicting (for about the 5th year in a row) that DET is going to finally implode.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

They won't. I expect they'll spend the entire year under .500, occasionally flirting with it during hot streaks.

 

Again, this is assuming they'll reach 80 wins, which I do not believe will happen.

 

80 wins isn't out of the question but it requires significant advancement/rebound of at least 75% of the following players:

 

Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Rosario, Berrios, Gibson, May, Polanco, Hughes.

 

That's a mighty tall order. It's not impossible, but it is highly unlikely.

Perfectly valid answer. It's not my answer, but it's fair

[Physics Guy]

 

I'm surprised you would call my opinion negative when my opinion is that I think 70 wins is a reasonable expectation and you seem to think the same thing.

 

My point was that if you are going to go to extremes (100 losses v. 80 wins), 100 losses is more likely.

I misunderstood your intention then.  My impression of your view was that 70 wins is optimistic, not reasonable. 

[Doomtints]

 

Plenty of teams don't have the talent to be within shouting distance of .500 yet somehow find themselves in that situation by the end of the year. See Twins: 2015.

 

That 83 win team lost talent between 2015 and 2016 and between 2016 and 2017.  If the Twins still had that 2015 roster, sure, we can talk about flirting with 80 wins.