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

[jorgenswest]

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....

You can find weighted average on baseball reference.

 

It also isn’t as helpful as you would think. Does it really matter that Lynn and Rodney are quite different in age? The Twins have no future control for either.

 

You can also look at splits and find that the Twins ranks up to age 25 or 26-30 by innings or plate appearances. This is also a little problematic because the Twins have not played as many games as most other teams.

 

That really is the best bet though. You can see use and effectiveness in the split. You would have to paste into a quick spreadsheet to get ratios to even out for the different number of games. Pitchers and hitters 25 and under both rank 9th in AL. I suspect that it might move up a little if it were leveled by games played but the narrative would be the same. The Twins are in the middle of the pack by age.

[Platoon]

During a GT a few nights ago someone said the White Sox broadcasters pointed out the Twins had not one player in the top ten at each position in the MLB (subjective) rankings? Is that true? And who ranked these players? I am not sure I agree with that list, if it exists. That said, pitching usually wins short series, and ours isn't at a level to be competitive with the big boys.

[Mr. Brooks]

During a GT a few nights ago someone said the White Sox broadcasters pointed out the Twins had not one player in the top ten at each position in the MLB (subjective) rankings? Is that true? And who ranked these players? I am not sure I agree with that list, if it exists. That said, pitching usually wins short series, and ours isn't at a level to be competitive with the big boys.

Whoever said that clearly forgot about Dozier.

Aside from him though, I'm not sure who else would even be a consideration.

Definitely not any pitchers.

You could make a case for Mauer, but that's only if you are going by this season only. I'd have to see him maintain this for a couple more months before I'd put him in the top 10.

[alarp33]

 

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.

 

I could have been more clear. Yes, Severino pitched like an Ace last year. It was also his 1st time ever doing it, and he had never pitched in the playoffs. I would not have put him in the Kluber, Sale, Verlander, Scherzer, Kershaw,Lester etc. class last year (the Aces other contenders rolled out).  

 

As for your 2nd point, I'm not denying luck is involved, especially in 1 game.  But lets not act like having Kershaw for example gives you a significantly better chance to win than a team starting Ervin Santana.  I think the poster I was replying to was discounting how heavy of favorite the Yankees were. 

[alarp33]

 

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.

 

I wasn't moving the goal posts, I misunderstood your argument. I thought you were saying it was much more likely any baseball team who qualified for playoffs had a better chance of winning a title than any other sport (below).  Obviously a -245 Baseball line is more likely to go to the underdog than something like that Pats - Titans line where the Pats were something like -800

 

KirbyDome89, on 06 May 2018 - 8:28 PM, said:

Are we talking about a 7 game series or a 1 game WC here?

Both. The WC game is almost complete luck, as one guy can lose or win the game.

 

"I don’t think the MLB postseason is a total crapshoot but it’s heavily dependent on luck, far more than other sports."

[alarp33]

 

Dropping the ball isn't luck.

 

 

Recovering it is

 

Not to mention, the Saints literally won the game because the game came down to a coin flip and the Vikings offense never got a chance to touch the ball in OT because of a coin flip

[Mr. Brooks]

Recovering it is

 

Not to mention, the Saints literally won the game because the game came down to a coin flip and the Vikings offense never got a chance to touch the ball in OT because of a coin flip

If Favre doesn't make a dumb throw, or no 12 men in the huddle, it doesn't go to OT.

Also, how is recovering a fumble luck? And even if it is, the Vikings recovered as many or more of their fumbles than the Saints did.

 

I don't think I ever claimed there is no luck in football, just less.

[alarp33]

 

If Favre doesn't make a dumb throw, or no 12 men in the huddle, it doesn't go to OT.
Also, how is recovering a fumble luck? And even if it is, the Vikings recovered as many or more of their fumbles than the Saints did.

I don't think I ever claimed there is no luck in football, just less.

 

Bill Barnwell has written a lot on the subject of luck in football, fumble recovering is a big one.  Its not a "skill", its more the luck of the bounce. 

 

Fumble recovery rate
Forcing fumbles is a skill, and giving away fumbles is a legitimate liability. What happens once the ball hits the ground is mostly randomness. No team has exhibited a steady ability to recover a disproportionately high percentage of the fumbles in their games. Not even that team you know who runs fumble recovery drills in practice and makes it a priority. (All teams do that.)

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17998672/raiders-bills-opposite-ends-luck-spectrum-far-2016-nfl-season

 

You said there is no comparison in football or basketball to the luck of a 20 hopper going through the infield.  Just pointing out there is plenty of luck involved in football. (one team falling on all 4 loose balls for example, would be far more impactful in a football game than a team getting a few 20 hoppers through the infield)  

 

As to the original discussion, yes Wild Card games will likely always have a closer moneyline, than a game against the 1 vs 6 seeds in an NFL divisional game or something.  Meaning the baseball underdog has a better chance to win.  I only jumped in because I thought the discussion was about how anyone who made the playoffs in baseball had a real chance to win the title, which really isn't that true

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

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

Eh, average age isn't everything. If the Twins are going to win big, they're going to do it on the backs of their young players, almost all of which are 26 or younger.

 

No one really cares about the age of Ryan Lamarre but he counts the same as Jose Berrios.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I wasn't moving the goal posts, I misunderstood your argument. I thought you were saying it was much more likely any baseball team who qualified for playoffs had a better chance of winning a title than any other sport (below).  Obviously a -245 Baseball line is more likely to go to the underdog than something like that Pats - Titans line where the Pats were something like -800

Fair enough. The more games played, the more likely the better team is to be the last one standing.

 

But in a one game playoff, damned near anything can happen and often does.

[alarp33]

 

Fair enough. The more games played, the more likely the better team is to be the last one standing.

 

But in a one game playoff, damned near anything can happen and often does.

 

Certainly, thats not really debateable.  The Yankees being fairly heavy WC game favorites (-245) was about the equivalent of the Vikings who were only 4 point favorites to beat the Saints this January.  I think that money line was around -240.  While the Pats were -800 to beat the Titans

[Mike Sixel]

 

Eh, average age isn't everything. If the Twins are going to win big, they're going to do it on the backs of their young players, almost all of which are 26 or younger.

 

No one really cares about the age of Ryan Lamarre but he counts the same as Jose Berrios.

\

 

Nice straw man, brock.......

 

Mauer, Castro, Dozier? ESan? Rodney? Reed? Lynn? Morrison? Heck, even Garver? Escobar?

 

Hence my looking for a weighted average age.....and IIRC, the Twins aren't young that way either. 

 

I just ran the numbers....based on plate appearances this year, the Twins are over 28 years old. That will drop as Buxton and Sano get more ABs.....

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Nice straw man, brock.......

 

Mauer, Castro, Dozier? ESan? Rodney? Reed? Lynn? Morrison? Heck, even Garver? Escobar?

 

Hence my looking for a weighted average age.....and IIRC, the Twins aren't young that way either. 

 

I just ran the numbers....based on plate appearances this year, the Twins are over 28 years old. That will drop as Buxton and Sano get more ABs.....

That's not a strawman, Mike. You said the Twins aren't that young and I responded saying that most of the important players are quite young.

 

Literally half this lineup is 26 or younger... and it's mostly the good half of the lineup. It'd be even younger if not for the Polanco suspension.

[Mike Sixel]

No. It is not. Not when you look at pitching also. And, you'd be surprised that other teams also have young hitters. They just aren't that young when you run the numbers.

 

Dozier and Mauer aren't in the good half?

[Brock Beauchamp]

No. It is not. Not when you look at pitching also. And, you'd be surprised that other teams also have young hitters. They just aren't that young when you run the numbers.

 

Dozier and Mauer aren't in the good half?

”Mostly the good half”, Mike.

 

And this rotation just got a hell of a lot younger.

 

I don’t even understand why you’re pressing this issue. I wasn’t speaking solely about this season and that was pretty clear from the conversation you quoted. The Twins have a good, young core. I don’t really care if fungible assets like Rodney are 103 years old. He’s gone after this season anyway.

[Mike Sixel]

Median MLB age of those players that have played at least 18 games this year (hitters only) is.....between 27 and 28. so, 26 isn't really young. 

 

More than 1/3 of those that have played in half their teams games are 26 or younger.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Ugh, just forget it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Ugh, just forget it.

 

Ok. I'm just running numbers, to see if they really are "young" or not. Because I'm curiuos. And, I downloaded the numbers and ran them. I'm not really arguing, just posting numbers. I think we all forget the league is younger than it used to be....just like we all forget that X number of strikeouts isn't as bad (for a hitter) or good (for a pitcher) as it used to be. The game has changed.

 

Do they have good players that aren't old? No one is diagreeing on that, I'm just looking at how other teams are also, because we tend to not really know as much about them. Like thinking that Garver is young, when he's median, for example. 

[jorgenswest]

How will you factor in Buxton, Sano and Polanco into whether they are young relative to the league?

 

There must be a few teams but I don’t think I would trade our group of 26 and under major leaguers Berrios, Romero, Kepler, Buxton, Sano, Rosario and Polanco to very many teams.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I could have been more clear. Yes, Severino pitched like an Ace last year. It was also his 1st time ever doing it, and he had never pitched in the playoffs. I would not have put him in the Kluber, Sale, Verlander, Scherzer, Kershaw,Lester etc. class last year (the Aces other contenders rolled out).  

 

As for your 2nd point, I'm not denying luck is involved, especially in 1 game.  But lets not act like having Kershaw for example gives you a significantly better chance to win than a team starting Ervin Santana.  I think the poster I was replying to was discounting how heavy of favorite the Yankees were. 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing you can't have a better chance.  What I think the contention is, is that great baseball teams (or ones with significantly superior talent relative to their opposition) are FAR more vulnerable than they are in basketball or football.  No matter how many mercenaries you pull in to improve your chances.

 

I'll still be in favor of the team doing smart things to push into the playoffs.  I look at it like this: Back in the 2000s run we had two trade possibilities that illustrate my view.  We had Cliff Lee for Aaron Hicks/+ and Alfonso Soriano for Scott Baker/Jason Kubel/+.  One of those (Lee) I think would've been a wise move.  The other (Soriano) I hope the team never engages in.  One increases your chances significantly at a relatively low cost to your chances going forward.  The other is a mortgage of the future for a relatively slim improvement to the present.  

 

I think smart teams know when the present gamble is worth the future one.  In the past we were far too reluctant, but I don't want us to be far too trigger happy either.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, how should I factor in minor league players that will come up for teams during the year? Or when ESan returns?

 

That's a great list for sure... I'm not arguing they don't have good young players. I'm pointing out that the league isn't really as old as we think.

 

Take the Yankees. You think they have less, more, or same number of under 26 players? Or Houston? Or the Angels?

 

I'm trying to pick teams that aren't obvious like the red Sox, with Betts, Boegarts, Devers, benintini, and only one starter under 26. Of course, Devers is 21, and Betts is one of the top five or ten players in the league. They're actually much younger than I thought. I figured those guys were 27 or more.

[ThejacKmp]

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.

Again, where were they supposed to get them? Sign darvish? Trade the farm for Archer? Wou!d that make them a god team of would that just shorten the development window?

 

Of course they need starting pitching. That's self-evident. Where they get it is the interesting part. I favor internal development and short term high floor or ceiling free agency over paying sticker price for an ace likely to suck by year four.

[Platoon]

Ok. I'm just running numbers, to see if they really are "young" or not. Because I'm curiuos. And, I downloaded the numbers and ran them. I'm not really arguing, just posting numbers. I think we all forget the league is younger than it used to be....just like we all forget that X number of strikeouts isn't as bad (for a hitter) or good (for a pitcher) as it used to be. The game has changed.

 

Do they have good players that aren't old? No one is diagreeing on that, I'm just looking at how other teams are also, because we tend to not really know as much about them. Like thinking that Garver is young, when he's median, for example.

 

Speaking of Garver, why is Wilson catching? I don't always have the sound on during a game, maybe they explained it. Is it simply that old night/day game thingy? That would be odd, Garver ain't exactly suffering from overuse?

[wsnydes]

 

Speaking of Garver, why is Wilson catching? I don't always have the sound on during a game, maybe they explained it. Is it simply that old night/day game thingy? That would be odd, Garver ain't exactly suffering from overuse?

Dick pointed out that Molitor felt that Wilson would be better with a young pitcher.  I can't really argue with the logic defensively.  Wilson has been around a while.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

Dick pointed out that Molitor felt that Wilson would be better with a young pitcher. I can't really argue with the logic defensively. Wilson has been around a while.

Yeah. Given that the Twins play a night/day series, no catcher is going to start both games. It makes sense to give the rookie the more established battery mate.