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

[USAFChief]

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.

Significant advancement from Sano and Buxton has to be almost a given, right? Berrios and Kepler seem likely. Now you'd need only two or three more in your scenario, from the "possibles."

 

I know the pitching needs to improve, but it should, just by accident. And from there, if the position players aren't good enough to get to around .500, then they likely never will.

[nicksaviking]

 

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.  

 

The talent the Twins lost after 2015 was basically 40-year-old Torii Hunter, Aaron Hicks, Jordan Schaffer, Mike Pelfrey, Blain Boyer, Aaron Thompson and Tim Stauffer. That sounds like a net positive to me.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Significant advancement from Sano and Buxton has to be almost a given, right? Berrios and Kepler seem likely. Now you'd need only two or three more in your scenario, from the "possibles."

I know the pitching needs to improve, but it should, just by accident. And from there, if the position players aren't good enough to get to around .500, then they likely never will.

 

This says nothing about injuries.  80 wins requires a 21 game improvement.  

 

And I don't think the pitching just gets better by accident.  A great deal of our struggles are baked in with bad defense and a pitching staff that can't strike people out.  

 

21 games.  I think people are losing sight of just how enormous that is.

[USAFChief]

This says nothing about injuries. 80 wins requires a 21 game improvement.

 

And I don't think the pitching just gets better by accident. A great deal of our struggles are baked in with bad defense and a pitching staff that can't strike people out.

 

21 games. I think people are losing sight of just how enormous that is.

All true, particularly injuries, although the defense will be better this year.

 

And a 21 game improvement IS enormous. But smaller than a 24 game drop.

[Doomtints]

 

The talent the Twins lost after 2015 was basically 40-year-old Torii Hunter, Aaron Hicks, Jordan Schaffer, Mike Pelfrey, Blain Boyer, Aaron Thompson and Tim Stauffer. That sounds like a net positive to me.

 

The Twins also lost talent in players who did not make it through 2016, either by trade or by injury. To only count the players they lost before the season started is only counting half of the lost inventory. They also "lost talent" not in the people sense, but in the production sense. Many players got worse. For example, Sano's stock was much higher 12 months ago than it is now.  

[Doomtints]

 

All true, particularly injuries, although the defense will be better this year.

And a 21 game improvement IS enormous. But smaller than a 24 game drop.

 

The defense will be similar, seeing as the roster (at least as of today) is nearly identical.

[nicksaviking]

 

The Twins also lost talent in players who did not make it through 2016, either by trade or by injury. To only count the players they lost before the season started is only counting half of the lost inventory. They also "lost talent" not in the people sense, but in the production sense. Many players got worse. For example, Sano's stock was much higher 12 months ago than it is now.  

 

Your argument was that they lost talent, not that the players declined, but even so, there is absolutely no reason to think that those players that declined in 2016 wouldn't bounce back to 2015 numbers if not better. The idea of a Sophomore Slump has been around for a long time. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Significant advancement from Sano and Buxton has to be almost a given, right? Berrios and Kepler seem likely. Now you'd need only two or three more in your scenario, from the "possibles."

I know the pitching needs to improve, but it should, just by accident. And from there, if the position players aren't good enough to get to around .500, then they likely never will.

I included position players because they need to significantly advance to make up for the pitching staff.

 

If everything goes perfectly in the rotation, they're mediocre. That's the ceiling. The bullpen probably doesn't even have a chance to be mediocre unless potential rotation assets, such as May and Duffey, are relegated to the pen and thrive.

 

To make up the difference, the offense needs to be pretty damned good... And I haven't even touched on defense yet. That could go either direction. The infield will likely be shaky but the outfield should be quite good if Buxton, Kepler, and Rosario stay on the field.

[Physics Guy]

 

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.  

We essentially lost Plouffe, Hunter, Suzuki, Hicks, Pelfrey and Millone.  We have Vargas/Park to DH to replace Plouffe's numbers (yes we lose D with Sano at 3B), Kepler (.734 OPS) to replace Hunter (.702), Castro to replace Suzuki, Buxton to replace Hicks and whatever fills #4 and #5 in the rotation to replace Millone and Pelfrey.  I can't say I'm terribly worried about what we lost.  That's not to mention the starts we don't give to Nolasco.

[drivlikejehu]

There's a difference between saying 80 wins is unlikely - which I agree with - and saying it's hard to see how it happens. The latter is actually pretty easy.

 

One way is that the Twins could be a 70-win caliber team that just gets very lucky with sequencing, along the lines of 2015. Poof, 80 wins.

 

Another is to improve by 8-10 wins and just not get unlucky with sequencing, as in 2016. That gets them to 80 wins or very close to it. Granted, that's a lot of wins, but better roster management alone should be able to get about halfway there. The young guys need to step up as well, but as has been discussed before, the org is doomed without that anyway.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The defense will be similar, seeing as the roster (at least as of today) is nearly identical.

In contrast to last season's opener, no more than 4 or 5 of the same 8 players will be taking the field in this year's opener. What is your definition of nearly identical?

[jimmer]

I don't remember our defense getting any better later in the season.  Don't we envision every starter besides Suzuki being the same?

[USAFChief]

The defense will be similar, seeing as the roster (at least as of today) is nearly identical.

I hope Robbie Grossman has fewer games played than Byron Buxton, unlike 2016. Kepler semi full time. More infield stability, less Eduardo Nunez. At least some improvement at catcher.

 

Injuries and/or poor performance can alter any plan, but at least to start, this will not be a copy of 2016.

 

Frankly, if the position players aren't already easily capable of 80 wins, this team is in real trouble. The "top farm system" of the past half decade is here.

 

The question marks had better be primarily on the pitching side.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't remember our defense getting any better later in the season.  Don't we envision every starter besides Suzuki being the same?

The only glaring issues I see are short and third.

 

C - Castro, big upgrade.

1B - Mauer is acceptable. Will weaken with a Park/Vargas platoon.

2B - Dozier is fine, provided he's still here.

3B - Sano, yikes.

SS - Polanco, yikes. Escobar, if he rebounds, could be acceptable though underwhelming.

LF - Rosario, good.

CF - Buxton, excellent.

RF - Kepler, a bit of a question mark but I suspect he improves over time. The guy is simply too athletic not to be at least an acceptable corner outfielder.

 

One thing the Twins lack is depth. An injury to Mauer means Vargas or Park at first (though I'm not convinced Park is a bad defender, need to see more). One injury to the outfield means the wandering albatross, Robbie Grossman, sees significant time out there.

[Doomtints]

 

In contrast to last season's opener, no more than 4 or 5 of the same 8 players will be taking the field in this year's opener. What is your definition of nearly identical?

 

The Twins had a colossal losing streak near the end of the year.  You can freely look at the roster later in the season for an accurate comparison. 

[Doomtints]

 

The only glaring issues I see are short and third.

 

C - Castro, big upgrade.

1B - Mauer is acceptable. Will weaken with a Park/Vargas platoon.

2B - Dozier is fine, provided he's still here.

3B - Sano, yikes.

SS - Polanco, yikes. Escobar, if he rebounds, could be acceptable though underwhelming.

LF - Rosario, good.

CF - Buxton, excellent.

RF - Kepler, a bit of a question mark but I suspect he improves over time. The guy is simply too athletic not to be at least an acceptable corner outfielder.

 

One thing the Twins lack is depth. An injury to Mauer means Vargas or Park at first (though I'm not convinced Park is a bad defender, need to see more). One injury to the outfield means the wandering albatross, Robbie Grossman, sees significant time out there.

Castro's defense is terrible.  More passed balls than Suzuki, more wild pitches allowed than Suzuki, also below league average at throwing out baserunners. And he hits worse than Suzuki too.

[TheLeviathan]

 

All true, particularly injuries, although the defense will be better this year.

And a 21 game improvement IS enormous. But smaller than a 24 game drop.

 

I'm not convinced the D will be better this year.  I'd be convinced if Polanco was at 2B and there was an all-glove SS, but without that we might be just as bad.  Maybe worse.  

 

Teams tend to fall off the cliff much more often than they have 59 loss seasons surge into 80 wins.  

 

I mean, it's conceivable of course, but that's a rather low bar.

[Vanimal46]

I hope Robbie Grossman has fewer games played than Byron Buxton, unlike 2016. Kepler semi full time. More infield stability, less Eduardo Nunez. At least some improvement at catcher.

Injuries and/or poor performance can alter any plan, but at least to start, this will not be a copy of 2016.

Frankly, if the position players aren't already easily capable of 80 wins, this team is in real trouble. The "top farm system" of the past half decade is here.

The question marks had better be primarily on the pitching side.

The OF defense should be better with more Buxton and less Grossman/D Santana out there. The IF defense IMO is worse than last year. Plouffe, flaws and all was an average 3B. Sano will most certainly have his ups and downs during his 1st full season at 3B. Polanco and Nunez is a wash. Both are known more for their bat than their glove.

[BK432]

I'm not a big fan of using Pythagorean record to judge true talent. It's kind of like using OPS to judge a hitter when something better like wOBA is staring you in the face. wOBA as we know looks at the precise value of the results of every time a batter reached the batter's box, versus simply adding OBP and OPS. And as we know, Pythagorean simply looks at the runs you scored, the runs you gave up, and provides a projected record based on those results. OK - it's somewhat helpful, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

BaseRuns is cool because it strips out all sequencing luck. Looks at the value of all the plays your team was involved in and spits out a record (very simplified explanation, I know). That's why I believe this is a team closer to a 71 win baseline than a 65 win baseline.

 

So I think the conversation has to begin with, where do you get those 9 wins? And that is a tall task, one I'm not certain can happen. Castro helps, in my opinion more than most know. And you don't have to squint hard to see Buxton and Sano as 4 WAR players. But there is inevitably downside that we're blind to right now, which would cause me to think 75 wins a more reasonable projection.

 

But it's way more fun to think about 80!

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Castro's defense is terrible.  More passed balls than Suzuki, more wild pitches allowed than Suzuki, also below league average at throwing out baserunners. And he hits worse than Suzuki too.

But he's a big upgrade in what I care most about, framing. Suzuki was a terrible framer and on a pitching staff this bad, that's a bigger upgrade than the occasional passed ball or stolen base.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm not convinced the D will be better this year.

Provided there are no disaster injuries, I have a hard time believing it won't be better this season.

 

Better is a long way from good, though.

 

Grossman and Sano were outfield disasters. That, hopefully, will no longer be an issue.

 

Sano is a downgrade at third, that much is certain... But short is still up in the air. If Polanco starts there all season, that's bad for the team defensively (though they were bad at the position last year as well).

 

To me, the wildcard in all this is whether Polanco plays second and whether we see 2014-15 Escobar at short (acceptable) or 2016 Escobar at short (very, very bad).

 

A lot hinges on Dozier and it's not only the pieces returned in trade. Trading Dozier also allows another infield signing on top of the positional adjustments that come with his departure.

[USAFChief]

I'm not a big fan of using Pythagorean record to judge true talent. It's kind of like using OPS to judge a hitter when something better like wOBA is staring you in the face. wOBA as we know looks at the precise value of the results of every time a batter reached the batter's box, versus simply adding OBP and OPS. And as we know, Pythagorean simply looks at the runs you scored, the runs you gave up, and provides a projected record based on those results. OK - it's somewhat helpful, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

BaseRuns is cool because it strips out all sequencing luck. Looks at the value of all the plays your team was involved in and spits out a record (very simplified explanation, I know). That's why I believe this is a team closer to a 71 win baseline than a 65 win baseline.

 

So I think the conversation has to begin with, where do you get those 9 wins? And that is a tall task, one I'm not certain can happen. Castro helps, in my opinion more than most know. And you don't have to squint hard to see Buxton and Sano as 4 WAR players. But there is inevitably downside that we're blind to right now, which would cause me to think 75 wins a more reasonable projection.

 

But it's way more fun to think about 80!

Good post, but a quibble...I'm reluctant to completely ascribe "sequencing" to luck. I don't think there's much evidence of that. And in fact, in at least my experience in other pursuits, to quote someone relevant, "luck is the residue of design."

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Good post, but a quibble...I'm reluctant to completely ascribe "sequencing" to luck. I don't think there's much evidence of that. And in fact, in at least my experience in other pursuits, to quote someone relevant, "luck is the residue of design."

I think there may be more to sequencing than "luck" but given the wild swings year-to-year, at least part, probably most, of it is luck-based.

 

Otherwise we'd be able to track managers and/or largely static teams from year to year and measure consistencies but from what I know, that simply isn't the case.

 

I mean, look at the Cubs. Despite being run by two of the smartest men in baseball, they were -4 BaseRuns in 2016.

[Doomtints]

 

But he's a big upgrade in what I care most about, framing. Suzuki was a terrible framer and on a pitching staff this bad, that's a bigger upgrade than the occasional passed ball or stolen base.

 

I feel like Castro's addition will be a true test to see how much pitch framing makes a difference.  Castro's bat might not be as bad as it looks, either.  

[drivlikejehu]

 

Good post, but a quibble...I'm reluctant to completely ascribe "sequencing" to luck. I don't think there's much evidence of that. And in fact, in at least my experience in other pursuits, to quote someone relevant, "luck is the residue of design."

 

Let's say Team A and Team B both get 9 singles in games against other clubs. Team A gets all 9 in one inning and Team B gets one each in 9 innings. No other players reach base. Team A scores 7 runs in that one inning and the game, while Team B scores 0 runs.

 

Did Team A get "lucky?" I'm not sure that there's really an answer to that question. The only relevant question, however, is whether Team A has a repeatable skill to bunch all of their singles in one inning. If not, our prediction for the future should expect a normal distribution of hits.

 

It's really just an extension of the "clutch hitter" issue. There are such things as clutch hits, but no such thing as a clutch hitter, even though random variation allows for some hitters to appear so on the surface.

[BK432]

 

Good post, but a quibble...I'm reluctant to completely ascribe "sequencing" to luck. I don't think there's much evidence of that. And in fact, in at least my experience in other pursuits, to quote someone relevant, "luck is the residue of design."

 

Fair - I just think it's closer to reality, not gospel.

[TheLeviathan]

Brock Beauchamp, on 20 Jan 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

Sano is a downgrade at third, that much is certain... But short is still up in the air. If Polanco starts there all season, that's bad for the team defensively (though they were bad at the position last year as well).

 

 

 

Well this is the crux of it.  I don't see how we put Polanco and Sano on the left side and have a better defense.  And I'm a big fan of the Castro signing for defensive reasons, but the infield generally sees a much higher volumes of defensive opportunities. 

 

And that current left side is scary, regardless of other places that are getting better.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Well this is the crux of it.  I don't see how we put Polanco and Sano on the left side and have a better defense.  And I'm a big fan of the Castro signing for defensive reasons, but the infield generally sees a much higher volumes of defensive opportunities. 

 

And that current left side is scary, regardless of other places that are getting better.

But will the left side of the infield be worse than the outfield for most of 2016?

 

I'm of the opinion the two will balance each other out. While the infield gets more opportunities, the 2016 outfield was horrific, worse than what I expect out of Polanco and Sano.

 

And short was really bad in 2016, as well. It'll be hard to be significantly worse in 2017.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The Twins had a colossal losing streak near the end of the year.  You can freely look at the roster later in the season for an accurate comparison.

 

I am freely looking, as opposed to a pay site.

 

But help me out. The last two months we had Plouffe and Sano splitting time (I think Sano is better), then Molitor had either Grossman or Santana still starting in the outfield almost every game, and according to Fangraphs, Castro was a much better catcher last season than Suzuki. What do you see that I don't?

[TheLeviathan]

 

But will the left side of the infield be worse than the outfield for most of 2016?

 

I'm of the opinion the two will balance each other out. While the infield gets more opportunities, the 2016 outfield was horrific, worse than what I expect out of Polanco and Sano.

 

And short was really bad in 2016, as well. It'll be hard to be significantly worse in 2017.

 

It's that I worry the combination over there causes it to be worse than we might rate it individually.

 

I agree, the outfield should be better.  (Assuming we implant a chip that doesn't allow Grossman to take the field.  or Santana for that matter)  And I am as optimistic as anyone about catcher.

 

But we've all seen how quickly a bad infield can implode everything.  That's what is fueling my worry.