By the end of Wednesday, it’s possible that we are in first place again

[alarp33]

 

We're talking past each other a bit here. I have repeatedly and intentionally used the phrase "close to a coin flip", not "a coin flip".

 

Given the two teams' rosters, home field, and win-loss record, the Yankees had an advantage.

 

But what was that advantage? 55%/45%? 60%/40%?

 

That's pretty damned close to a coin flip. Unlike the NBA or NFL where you can pretty accurately predict a win because the odds can go as high as 80%/20% or even 90%/10% in extreme situations, a single baseball game is pretty close to a coin flip.

 

Last year the Twins were 50 to 1 entering the playoffs to win the World Series.  

 

 

That is worse odds to win the title than the Tennesee Titans had to win the Super Bowl heading into their divisional round game at NE

 

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/2017-world-series-playoffs-updated-odds-predictions-picks-winner/cdk2otl4wdm1dghain3o82ia

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2753565-nfl-playoff-odds-2018-divisional-round-picks-and-super-bowl-predictions

 

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

I'm not convinced that Cleveland is going to continue to be so mediocre. I believe they'll rebound and easily win the division.

That's exactly what they did last season. I'm in the same boat with Cleveland as I was with the Twins last season; I'll believe it when I see it. Until the Indians are actually eliminated from realistically winning the division I'm going to consider them the favorite.

[yarnivek1972]

I'm not convinced that Cleveland is going to continue to be so mediocre. I believe they'll rebound and easily win the division.

 

Conversely I'm not sure about this Twins team. I think their only chance at a shot at having a deep playoff run is to go on a hot streak from August to October and ride the momentum. But there's so much more baseball to be played and it's hard to know how our injured or suspended players will do when they return, so it's hard to say anything for certain.

The Indians took off late in the year last season...

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't think the WC is as luck dependent as you, but I do hate the fact it's only one game, especially in a 162 game season where every matchup is a series. I buy the "any team can advance," theory because statistically any team can beat any other, and a one game series certainly favors the lesser club. That said, the Twins would have been significant underdogs against any AL playoff team last season. I would have a very difficult time attributing a Twins loss to any of those teams as "unlucky."

 

Are we talking about doing away with the postseason, playing a balanced schedule, and then crowning a champ based on record? I'm not sure we can ask for more than a 7 game series, and I'm also unsure why luck is a larger factor in baseball than other sports.

Luck is a much bigger factor in baseball than other sports.

In baseball, you can hit a hard line drive, and it's right at someone.

You can hit a 20 hopper that finds a way through the infield.

 

There are really no comparisons to that in football or basketball. Hockey there is.

 

It's also why you never see teams in baseball with equivalent winning or losing percentages that you would from the best and worst teams in football.

 

In the NFL, it's common for the worst teams to go 1-15 or 2-14 (or even 0-16!). There just aren't enough ways for the worse team to overcome their talent discrepancy in football.

A 2-14 equivalent in baseball would be about 21-141. And you'll never see that, no matter how bad the team is.

 

All that said, the better team should still win 60% of the time in baseball. And, there are ways to build a team that can win in the regular season (when you face 3,4,5 pitchers 60% of the time), but stands very little realistic chance in the postseason, when you face 1's and 2's 80% of the time, and you rarely face 4's, and never 5's.

So, while I completely agree with those saying baseball is very luck dependent (that's why they play so many games in the first place), I don't think it's quite accurate to say anyone can win if they get in.

I think a few teams have almost no chance, and the rest have nearly equal chance, depending on how they are built.

[alarp33]

 

Luck is a much bigger factor in baseball than other sports.
In baseball, you can hit a hard line drive, and it's right at someone.
You can hit a 20 hopper that finds a way through the infield.

There are really no comparisons to that in football or basketball. Hockey there is.

It's also why you never see teams in baseball with equivalent winning or losing percentages that you would from the best and worst teams in football.

In the NFL, it's common for the worst teams to go 1-15 or 2-14 (or even 0-16!). There just aren't enough ways for the worse team to overcome their talent discrepancy in football.
A 2-14 equivalent in baseball would be about 21-141. And you'll never see that, no matter how bad the team is.

All that said, the better team should still win 60% of the time in baseball. And, there are ways to build a team that can win in the regular season (when you face 3,4,5 pitchers 60% of the time), but stands very little realistic chance in the postseason, when you face 1's and 2's 80% of the time, and you rarely face 4's, and never 5's.
So, while I completely agree with those saying baseball is very luck dependent (that's why they play so many games in the first place), I don't think it's quite accurate to say anyone can win if they get in.
I think a few teams have almost no chance, and the rest have nearly equal chance, depending on how they are built.

 

2009 NFC Championship, one team had 475 total yards and 31 1st downs, the other had 257yds and 15 1st downs.  The 457 dropped the ball a few times and lost... there's luck in every sport. 

 

 

 

 

[nicksaviking]

 

That's exactly what they did last season. I'm in the same boat with Cleveland as I was with the Twins last season; I'll believe it when I see it. Until the Indians are actually eliminated from realistically winning the division I'm going to consider them the favorite.

 

Cleveland also has a loaded rotation. Getting front line starters mid-season takes way more equity than getting bullpen help or additional bats. The Twins are still missing the big starting arms which means they're at a pretty significant disadvantage when it comes to restructuring on the fly.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Last year the Twins were 50 to 1 entering the playoffs to win the World Series.  

 

 

That is worse odds to win the title than the Tennesee Titans had to win the Super Bowl heading into their divisional round game at NE

 

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/2017-world-series-playoffs-updated-odds-predictions-picks-winner/cdk2otl4wdm1dghain3o82ia

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2753565-nfl-playoff-odds-2018-divisional-round-picks-and-super-bowl-predictions

You just moved the goalposts to an entirely different stadium.

 

I'm talking about one game and/or one series, not the required 11+ wins needed to win the World Series (which will take even the most dominant postseason team 15+ overall games).

 

The more games you add to baseball, the more often you'll see the best team emerge on top. That's why they play 162 games and not 50.

[nicksaviking]

 

You just moved the goalposts to an entirely different stadium.

 

I'm talking about one game and/or one series, not the required 11+ wins needed to win the World Series (which will take even the most dominant postseason team 15+ overall games).

 

The more games you add to baseball, the more often you'll see the best team emerge on top. That's why they play 162 games and not 50.

 

He did move the goal posts, but I'd argue that's where they should have been all along. I'm not going to be satisfied in the least if this team manages to win the dopey WC game only to get bounced in the next round.

 

As Twins fans we are long past due for a WS trophy let alone an appearance.

 

But it certainly does seem like the yearly goal set by this team is to get to the playoffs and go with the chip-chair-and-a-chance mentality from there, which conveniently lays the ground work for any number of excuses when it doesn't pan out.

[USAFChief]

I've heard baseball described as: the sport least likely to go according to form in the short term, and the most likely to go according to form in the long term.

 

I think that's probably pretty accurate.

 

It's also fair to say that teams that make the postseason aren't necessarily the same teams that played the 162 game schedule.

 

The Twins will be a different team when/if Sano, Buxton, Santana and Polanco are healthy than they are today. The 2017 Houston Astros were a different team after they acquired Justin Verlander.

[ashbury]

Baseball playoffs may or may not be luck-based, but compared to other sports there is no other factor I can think of that is similar to the effect of the starting rotation. In football the quarterback has a similar game-changing effect as a starting pitcher, but a team doesn't have a different QB in different games through the post-season. (In all this, I'm excluding the effect of injuries, which affects any sport.) Hockey has their rotations throughout the game, but over the course of the game the coach has the best players in for the maximum amount of time, and the best goalie plays every game. In basketball I don't think there is a position as determinative as starting pitcher or QB.

 

Baseball managers would prefer to have their best pitchers available for key games, but sometimes fortune intervenes and that pitcher was needed in order to assure a playoff spot at all. And in the WC, if you use your best pitcher then he's not available for maximum duty in the next round. It's not luck, exactly, but if by chance your ace isn't available for the WC, and you win anyway, then you are better situated than if otherwise. It's "luck of the draw", in some ways, except it's not a random draw, it's the way the pennant chases unfolded, for instance if your division happened to be more competitive than others. I think the overall issue of Starting Pitcher has a lot to do with the "crapshoot" nature of how some view baseball playoffs.

[nicksaviking]

 

I've heard baseball described as: the least likely to go according to form in the short term, and the most likely to go according to form in the long term.

 

I think that's probably pretty accurate.

 

It's also fair to say that teams that make the postseason aren't necessarily the same teams that played the 162 game schedule.

 

The Twins will be a different team when/if Sano, Buxton, Santana and Polanco are healthy than they are today. The 2017 Houston Astros were a different team after they acquired Justin Verlander.

 

Win or lose, if they go get 2018's version of Justin Verlander I'll be satisfied that they've put in an appropriate effort to do what is needed to hedge their bets in an attempt to win it all, not just make an appearance.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The Yankees were -245 in the WC game last year.  That's not saying the Twins couldn't have won, but that's a significant favorite and they (NYY) didn't even have an Ace. 

 

1 WC team in the 2xWC era has won the World Series, and that team had a pretty damn good ace that the Twins do not have 

 

If Luis Severino doesn't count as an "ace", we're going to go down an entirely different rabbit hole.

 

One can say "Baseball depends a lot on luck" and still also say "You can do things to give yourself a better chance"  They aren't mutually exclusive.  But don't think that adding Verlander guarantees anything.  The Dodgers have been fielding the best pitcher any of us will ever see for almost a decade and have routinely been bounced in the first round time and time again.  

 

Over 162 games we find out who the best teams are.  In the playoffs we find out who was the best team in October.  Those two outcomes are rarely the same thing.

[TheLeviathan]

 

They had some good teams, but they didn't put their thumb on the scale anything like most of the teams that have won the WS most of this past century.

 

I'm not sure this is a true statement.  I've seen plenty of heavy thumbs do nothing and plenty of thumbs have an impact.  I've also seen some minimal/no thumb teams do it.  I'm not sure your generalization is accurate at all.

[jkcarew]

Yes, we could be in first place by Wednesday.

Or we could be 7 games out and 10 games under in two weeks.

 

The Twins next 12 games involve 4 opponents, all with winning records, including two division-leaders.  Meanwhile, Cleveland plays 6 games against KC and Detroit in that span.

 

6-6 (even 5-7) in these next 12 games would mean more to me than 3-1 against the White Sox.

In the meantime, yes...we can dream of continued Cleveland mediocrity.

 

 

[ashbury]

In the meantime, yes...we can dream of continued Cleveland mediocrity.

[wsnydes]

 

Yes, we could be in first place by Wednesday.

Or we could be 7 games out and 10 games under in two weeks.

 

The Twins next 12 games involve 4 opponents, all with winning records, including two division-leaders.  Meanwhile, Cleveland plays 6 games against KC and Detroit in that span.

 

6-6 (even 5-7) in these next 12 games would mean more to me than 3-1 against the White Sox.

In the meantime, yes...we can dream of continued Cleveland mediocrity.

I think that it's important to remember that although the Twins get to play a ton of games against Detroit, White Sox and Royals, so does Cleveland.  Cleveland also has the advantage of getting to play the Twins.  Sure, the Twins can turn that into an advantage but as it stands right now that is not the case.

[ThejacKmp]

 

He did move the goal posts, but I'd argue that's where they should have been all along. I'm not going to be satisfied in the least if this team manages to win the dopey WC game only to get bounced in the next round.

 

As Twins fans we are long past due for a WS trophy let alone an appearance.

 

But it certainly does seem like the yearly goal set by this team is to get to the playoffs and go with the chip-chair-and-a-chance mentality from there, which conveniently lays the ground work for any number of excuses when it doesn't pan out.

 

I'd be very happy with a WC victory and an ALDS series. And would have before the season. That would be a big accomplishment and great experience for the young uns. This WS-or-bust thing is a terrible concept. Yeah we could go get a deadline ace by trading away top prospects. Maybe get Manny Machado on a rental by trading Gordon.

But that would be stupid and shortsighted.

 

The Twins are on the early edge of their window. They have a young core of hitters who are all still developing and a wave of pitching that is still a year away from the majors. You can even see a nice secondary wave building 3-4 years from now with Lewis, Kiriloff, Graterol etc. Their division has a team that is fairly far into their window (Indians), rebuilding (White Sox) or delusional about not rebuilding (Tigers, Royals). Going for it hurts the team's chance to be competitive for years to come.

 

That's what smart organizations do - they build a team that can compete year-in, year-out while also making the small additions that won't cost long-term depth but will help give the team a chance.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Luck is a much bigger factor in baseball than other sports.
In baseball, you can hit a hard line drive, and it's right at someone.
You can hit a 20 hopper that finds a way through the infield.

There are really no comparisons to that in football or basketball. Hockey there is.

It's also why you never see teams in baseball with equivalent winning or losing percentages that you would from the best and worst teams in football.

In the NFL, it's common for the worst teams to go 1-15 or 2-14 (or even 0-16!). There just aren't enough ways for the worse team to overcome their talent discrepancy in football.
A 2-14 equivalent in baseball would be about 21-141. And you'll never see that, no matter how bad the team is.

All that said, the better team should still win 60% of the time in baseball. And, there are ways to build a team that can win in the regular season (when you face 3,4,5 pitchers 60% of the time), but stands very little realistic chance in the postseason, when you face 1's and 2's 80% of the time, and you rarely face 4's, and never 5's.
So, while I completely agree with those saying baseball is very luck dependent (that's why they play so many games in the first place), I don't think it's quite accurate to say anyone can win if they get in.
I think a few teams have almost no chance, and the rest have nearly equal chance, depending on how they are built.

An offline shot that banks in? A deflected ball bounces into a defenders hands? We can sit here all day and comb over scenarios where luck factors in.  

 

Of course you won't see that kind of record, but a large part of that is because they play 162 games in a baseball season. A sample size that large should be an equalizer. Shouldn't we expect the curve for baseball to be steeper? More teams from either side should be gravitating towards the midline. With a 16 game season it shouldn't be surprising that the curve is more flat. Extremes are more likely to be seen given the small sample. The Twins just came off a 3-12 stretch and they're missing a handful of important players. That can easily torpedo a 16 game season. Baseball, more so than other sports, has the luxury of buffering against injury, poor performance, ect. I'm not saying luck isn't involved in any way, but I do think it's attributed too liberally in some cases. 

 

We're in agreement about the "anybody can win," mantra. The only part of it I support is the statistical fact than any team has a chance. The issue is that the difference in likelihood of either team winning is too often downplayed to the point where games become a "crapshoot." I strongly disagree with that. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

He did move the goal posts, but I'd argue that's where they should have been all along. I'm not going to be satisfied in the least if this team manages to win the dopey WC game only to get bounced in the next round.

 

As Twins fans we are long past due for a WS trophy let alone an appearance.

 

But it certainly does seem like the yearly goal set by this team is to get to the playoffs and go with the chip-chair-and-a-chance mentality from there, which conveniently lays the ground work for any number of excuses when it doesn't pan out.

I agree the postseason shouldn't be the ultimate goal every season (just one goal of several).

 

But no one is making the argument "just get to the postseason", are they? I haven't seen anyone arguing the Twins should stand pat or that their goal is to reach the Wild Card game. I'm certainly not making that argument. In fact, I recently said I'll be immensely disappointed if the Twins back into the Wild Card game by beating up on a weak division, not by being a legitimately good team.

[Mr. Brooks]

2009 NFC Championship, one team had 475 total yards and 31 1st downs, the other had 257yds and 15 1st downs. The 457 dropped the ball a few times and lost... there's luck in every sport.

Dropping the ball isn't luck.

[nicksaviking]

 

I'd be very happy with a WC victory and an ALDS series. And would have before the season. That would be a big accomplishment and great experience for the young uns. This WS-or-bust thing is a terrible concept. Yeah we could go get a deadline ace by trading away top prospects. Maybe get Manny Machado on a rental by trading Gordon.

But that would be stupid and shortsighted.

 

The Twins are on the early edge of their window. They have a young core of hitters who are all still developing and a wave of pitching that is still a year away from the majors. You can even see a nice secondary wave building 3-4 years from now with Lewis, Kiriloff, Graterol etc. Their division has a team that is fairly far into their window (Indians), rebuilding (White Sox) or delusional about not rebuilding (Tigers, Royals). Going for it hurts the team's chance to be competitive for years to come.

 

That's what smart organizations do - they build a team that can compete year-in, year-out while also making the small additions that won't cost long-term depth but will help give the team a chance.

 

This team doesn't have the starting pitching to be on the precipice of any kind of genuine window. They tried the "hold on to the prospects" approach last decade. Why do they have to try the same thing again? What's wrong with giving a different approach a shot?

 

Plenty of teams choose to aggressively make a run instead of bide their time until all the magical moments all match up. I don't believe that I am the only one who would have rather had the Royals short four year window that included two WS appearances and a win over the Twins decade of sustained winning seasons and no trophies to show for it. 

[nicksaviking]

 

I agree the postseason shouldn't be the ultimate goal every season (just one goal of several).

 

But no one is making the argument "just get to the postseason", are they? I haven't seen anyone arguing the Twins should stand pat or that their goal is to reach the Wild Card game. I'm certainly not making that argument. In fact, I recently said I'll be immensely disappointed if the Twins back into the Wild Card game by beating up on a weak division, not by being a legitimately good team.

 

I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone else here is satisfied with another mere playoff appearance. 

 

It's just that we still haven't seen the club make moves like they are actually planning on bringing home a trophy. They had a lot of action this past off season but I don't think anyone was under the impression that these guys were anywhere near the level of the Astros, Red Sox and Yankees.

[ThejacKmp]

 

This team doesn't have the starting pitching to be on the precipice of any kind of genuine window. They tried the "hold on to the prospects" approach last decade. Why do they have to try the same thing again? What's wrong with giving a different approach a shot?

 

Plenty of teams choose to aggressively make a run instead of bide their time until all the magical moments all match up. I don't believe that I am the only one who would have rather had the Royals short four year window that included two WS appearances and a win over the Twins decade of sustained winning seasons and no trophies to show for it. 

 

So you want them to do what? Trade for this year's Verlander? What player put them over the top? What move do you make that the Twins didn't? Give Darvish seven years?

 

I also disagree on the Twins not having the starting pitching to have a good shot in their window. Berrios, Gonsalves, Romero and Thorpe are all promising arms with upside and that doesn't get into some of the guys they've drafted in the years before that. They don't have the ability to be the Mets of four years ago with four young aces and they're unlikely to enter the postseason as the team with the best rotation but how much does that matter? The Nationals regularly have a great rotation and crap out. The Twins have enough guys with the potential to be postseason arms you can win with.

 

Those Royals teams had nothing exciting pitching-wise. Like those Royals teams, the Twins have the potential for a deep and dynamic offense - the Yankees' staff this year is nothing special but an offense makes them a contender. The Twins aren't going to have Stanton and Judge but they could be a scary 1-9 team without too much squinting.

 

This just seem super negative with no real alternative. The Twins weren't a pitcher away from being a World Series team. Paying a ransom for Archer or whoever wasn't going to do anything more than narrow the window with no real payoff.

[Mr. Brooks]

So you want them to do what? Trade for this year's Verlander? What player put them over the top? What move do you make that the Twins didn't? Give Darvish seven years?

 

I also disagree on the Twins not having the starting pitching to have a good shot in their window. Berrios, Gonsalves, Romero and Thorpe are all promising arms with upside and that doesn't get into some of the guys they've drafted in the years before that. They don't have the ability to be the Mets of four years ago with four young aces and they're unlikely to enter the postseason as the team with the best rotation but how much does that matter? The Nationals regularly have a great rotation and crap out. The Twins have enough guys with the potential to be postseason arms you can win with.

 

Those Royals teams had nothing exciting pitching-wise. Like those Royals teams, the Twins have the potential for a deep and dynamic offense - the Yankees' staff this year is nothing special but an offense makes them a contender. The Twins aren't going to have Stanton and Judge but they could be a scary 1-9 team without too much squinting.

 

This just seem super negative with no real alternative. The Twins weren't a pitcher away from being a World Series team. Paying a ransom for Archer or whoever wasn't going to do anything more than narrow the window with no real payoff.

Having promising pitchers in the system is not the same thing as having WS caliber starting pitching. We have no idea what those guys will do in the majors.

Only Berrios is established, and despite flashes of the really good #2, fringe ace type that I think he can be, he's not there yet- which means he may never be.

 

I'm thrilled that we have legitimate starting pitching prospects now. But until they pan out, this team is still in dire need of pitching at the mlb level, IMO.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone else here is satisfied with another mere playoff appearance. 

 

It's just that we still haven't seen the club make moves like they are actually planning on bringing home a trophy. They had a lot of action this past off season but I don't think anyone was under the impression that these guys were anywhere near the level of the Astros, Red Sox and Yankees.

I agree they're not on the level of those teams but things can change in a hurry when a huge portion of your roster is 26 or under and you have the likes of Gonsalves, Thorpe, Romero, et al in the upper minors.

 

Maybe the Twins need another piece to improve the team. Maybe they don't... but teams rarely catapult from 58 wins to league powerhouse in two seasons. It's a slow and steady fight to get where the Twins want to be in the near future.

 

And when that time comes, I hope they're ready to make the moves the previous front office refused to make.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I agree they're not on the level of those teams but things can change in a hurry when a huge portion of your roster is 26 or under and you have the likes of Gonsalves, Thorpe, Romero, et al in the upper minors.

 

Maybe the Twins need another piece to improve the team. Maybe they don't... but teams rarely catapult from 58 wins to league powerhouse in two seasons. It's a slow and steady fight to get where the Twins want to be in the near future.

 

And when that time comes, I hope they're ready to make the moves the previous front office refused to make.

 

Twins aren't all that young, actually.....

[Mr. Brooks]

Twins aren't all that young, actually.....

Correct.

The Twins are actually the 9th oldest team in baseball, according to ESPN.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Correct.
The Twins are actually the 9th oldest team in baseball, according to ESPN.

 

I can't find a site that lists the weighted average age, taking into account how much players play....but I know they are out there. I am pretty sure I saw they were closer to median when weighting for age....

[Platoon]

I'm not convinced that Cleveland is going to continue to be so mediocre. I believe they'll rebound and easily win the division.

 

Conversely I'm not sure about this Twins team. I think their only chance at a shot at having a deep playoff run is to go on a hot streak from August to October and ride the momentum. But there's so much more baseball to be played and it's hard to know how our injured or suspended players will do when they return, so it's hard to say anything for certain.

The fact is Cleveland gets to play the same amount of games against the other Central teams as we do. And they still have superior pitching, at least at this time.

[ewen21]

 

Just let that sink in for a moment, considering what this team has gone through over the first month and change. Yeah, the central has been garbage so far, but never apologize for that. Getting in the postseason is all that matters as it is a complete crapshoot once you’re in.

I get the glass half full approach, but our playoff run will be three losses and to the golf course if we have to face NY.  For those of you insisting an ace would have made a difference in the multiple series we played against them: 1. We had one and 2. We averaged under three runs in the last twelve playoff games we played against them.  Sorry, but if you can't score 3 runs, you aren't going to win.  Period.

 

This runs way deeper than having one really good pitcher.