Early 2018 Power Rankings

[Physics Guy]

David Schoenfield posted hsi way-too-early power rankings for next year last night:

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21139850/ranking-mlb-teams-ahead-offseason

 

He has the Twins at #19, which seems way-too-low for our favorite team.    He obviously thinks the Twins over-performed last year.    I would have had them in the 10-12 range.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Physics Guy

[USAFChief]

CA Angels 10th?

 

 

[mazeville]

I don't like "too early power rankings" like the one linked below, given that a lot can happen this offseason. Also, baseball is weird.

 

But, this one is particularly annoying.

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21139850/ranking-mlb-teams-ahead-offseason

 

He has the Twins listed 19th. And then he called the season "a little bit of a fluke."

 

One thing about the Twins' 2017 season was this: It was NOT a fluke. 

 

The Twins won 85 games. They had a +27 run differential. Based on that, they would have won ... maybe 83 games. Winning two more games than your run differential hardly qualifies as a fluke. 

 

Sure, the pitching was iffy. But the lineup was not iffy. And the defense was not iffy. The Twins were a legitimate, 85-win team in 2017. Were they world beaters? Absolutely not. Were they somewhat lucky to make the playoffs? Yes. But they were certainly not a fluke. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

note, I merged the duplicate threads... not quite sure why this would be out yet... at least wait until free agency is largely done.

[ashbury]

They might have over-performed on the Runs-Against side, versus the OPS against them. That might be a couple dozen runs, or something like a couple of wins (on top of the Pythag estimate already mentioned).

 

Probably it has more to do with a view that a large jump upward for a team can be followed by a bit of a reversion.

 

I assume this ranking is intended as the here-and-now, and doesn't assume the FO will fix some obvious problems on the pitching side. So, no offense taken where none intended.

[drjim]

 

CA Angels 10th?

 

Jumped out at me too. A's seem really high, and I think the Rays and Pirates are more likely to take a step back. Otherwise, the middle looks pretty muddled.

[dbminn]

I'd take the over on 19th without any changes to the team. I expect the team to compete again next year with a couple of roster additions from the FO.

[spinowner]

Possibly the only thing worse about Schoenfield taking himself seriously is anyone else taking him seriously. This should be given the amount of attention it deserves: none.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Saying a bunch of 25-and-younger players taking a step forward is flukey... Okay, sure, buddy.

 

The Twins have problems, for sure, but their 2017 wasn't flukey by more than a handful of games. At worst, they were a .500 team that was a little bit lucky.

[Thrylos]

Cannot count the ways that this is inane.

[prouster]

Yeah, this is pretty kooky.

[drjim]

An underrated part of this article is how mediocre the prose is.

[DaveW]

19 is too low, but not as low as some people think IMO.

 

The reality is the Twins SP is in pretty dire straights and the bullpen, while better than many assumed isn’t exactly playoff caliber IMO.

 

I’d put the Twins somewhere closer to the 12-15 range as of today.

 

If they can go out and get a legit arm (#2/#3) and a top end bullpen arm, id prob have them somewhere between 8 and 10.

 

It’s imperative that they fix the pitching.

Edited November 3, 2017 by DaveW

[DaveW]

Also maybe other than the Rockies, I think the Twins are quite a bit behind the other 2017 playoff teams, 95% of which is likely due to pitching.

[JustinCB]

Jumped out at me too. A's seem really high, and I think the Rays and Pirates are more likely to take a step back. Otherwise, the middle looks pretty muddled.

He only follows the Mariners so probably more familiar with the al west and he's always down on the twins. Nothing to see here

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I’d put the Twins somewhere closer to the 12-15 range as of today.

As would I.

[spinowner]

 

 inane.

There is not a better word to describe an effort to do a 2018 ranking one day after the end of the 2017 season.

[Thrylos]

 

19 is too low, but not as low as some people think IMO.

 

It is one step above the Marlins who already put out the Garage Sale signs...

[PseudoSABR]

I also heard on the Dan Patrick show this morning, that the Twins were 80 to 1 odds at WS champs, along with teams like the Reds and Padres, even DP commented on those long odds, "I thought they were up and coming team..."

[Monkeypaws]

Why do we even care about such rubbish?

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Why do we even care about such rubbish?

The off season presents a low threshold of conversation-worthy topics. Especially, on internet sport forums. 

[snepp]

 

The off season presents a low threshold of conversation-worthy topics. Especially, on internet sport forums. 

 

Only 145 days, 12 hours, and 43 minutes until opening day!

[Doomtints]

Is it a fluke that the Twins finished where they did? I doubt it. They worked very hard this year.

 

Is it a fluke that the Twins made the playoffs? Yes, there were a rare number of sub-.500 teams in the AL.

The author made a false equivalence between these two things. The Twins will be good next year, and with some pitching potentially very good.

[ashbury]

There will be no shortage of rankings, so maybe I shouldn't add it to this thread, but 538.com yesterday ranked all teams' 5-year futures based on current "team characteristics", in an article mostly about the Astros and Dodgers. Twins place 9th.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-teams-future-is-brightest-the-astros-or-dodgers/