Article: Dear Twins: Don't Sell!

[yarnivek1972]

So much math.

 

My head is going to explode.

[Vanimal46]

So much math.

 

My head is going to explode.

So much math and so little numbers to fuss over. We're talking about 12.5% on the most optimistic projection system.

[nicksaviking]

 

I admit, 8-12% isn't high. (8.4% Fangraphs season to date projection mode, 12.5% Fangraphs coin flip mode -- obviously if you fully buy the 1.6% figure that's a different story, but I don't even know if Fangraphs buys that fully)

 

But what chances do you put on these four or five additional 40 FV prospects contributing meaningfully to a better Twins team down the line? I'm open to being shown otherwise, but I don't think it's going to clear 8-12% by all that much.

 

Then doesn't that really reduce this to a matter of preference and gut feeling? 

 

8% was only the odds of winning the division. Winning the AL Central doesn't mean you're good and it doesn't mean you're a contender. 

 

I'd resent it if they skipped out on a chance to win the WS, not on the chance to get their teeth kicked in in the playoffs.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

You completely ignored what I said. You justified an earlier point by saying the reduction in odds was 25% which of course is true if we agree to the assumptions being used.

 

I'm confused. I didn't try to justify any point by the 25% figure. I already made my point, clearly and repeatedly, before that. I leaned toward going for it, knowing everything we know including the 8% (and 1.6% and 12.5% ). Someone else posited that our odds might still be 5-6% after the trades, which I disagreed with. I also pointed out that a $2 pay cut is a bigger deal to someone making $8 an hour, as compared to someone making $50 an hour. You can ignore that statement if you like, as it has nothing to do with my point at all.

 

I think the call was close. If we were a couple games closer, or a couple games further back, I think it would have been much clearer. That's kind of the definition of gray area where multiple reasonable opinions can exist. I don't necessarily fault the front office for making this call, although I am a little disappointed as a fan, that's all.

 

Since you are still participating here, though, I am still curious if you are willing to answer the questions I asked you repeatedly upthread: "what odds do you put on your scenario (these 5 prospects contributing significantly to a future "great season" where we are postseason favorites)? And what are the underlying numbers you would use to arrive at that figure?"

[jkcarew]

This is a primary reason why, when God created baseball, (person pronoun of your choice here) put the trade deadline so much before the point of mathematical elimination for even finge contenders....

 

It creates communion among the followers.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

This was literally in the quoted section I replied too; 

 

"I already know the odds were 8%-12%,"

My bad! I somehow looked at the post above yours. I am getting quoted a lot right now. I'm not really that quotable though!

 

Feel free to read it as "I already know the odds were ~7-8%" if you want. Obviously there is no one figure we can distill this down to, there are plenty of subjective factors too. If we had identical odds and had just lost a Francisco Liriano circa 2006, I'd probably be all about the sell too.

What I meant, knowing everything we know.

Edited July 30, 2018 by spycake

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

This is a primary reason why, when God created baseball, (person pronoun of your choice here) put the trade deadline so much before the point of mathematical elimination for even finge contenders....

It creates communion among the followers.

I think God actually put the trade deadline on June 15th. It was prophet Peter Ueberroth who moved it to July 31.

[jkcarew]

I think God actually put the trade deadline on June 15th. It was prophet Peter Ueberroth who moved it to July 31.

Dabbled in other religions such as Olympic Games. We should have been more wary of him!

[Otto von Ballpark]

That's great stuff.

 

I'll bow out of this thread now, seems like a high point.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

So much math and so little numbers to fuss over. We're talking about 12.5% on the most optimistic projection system.

Or, for those who prefer to read standings, 7 games back. Edited July 30, 2018 by Hosken Bombo Disco

[Guest]

9 pages of comments... on a post I authored? Really? I don't get 9 comments total on my minor league centric posts.

 

I really can't wait until the Twins are good enough to make me feel inclined to care enough to write about them more often.

[Major League Ready]

 

I'm confused. I didn't try to justify any point by the 25% figure. I already made my point, clearly and repeatedly, before that. I leaned toward going for it, knowing everything we know including the 8% (and 1.6% and 12.5% ). Someone else posited that our odds might still be 5-6% after the trades, which I disagreed with. I also pointed out that a $2 pay cut is a bigger deal to someone making $8 an hour, as compared to someone making $50 an hour. You can ignore that statement if you like, as it has nothing to do with my point at all.

 

I think the call was close. If we were a couple games closer, or a couple games further back, I think it would have been much clearer. That's kind of the definition of gray area where multiple reasonable opinions can exist. I don't necessarily fault the front office for making this call, although I am a little disappointed as a fan, that's all.

 

Since you are still participating here, though, I am still curious if you are willing to answer the questions I asked you repeatedly upthread: "what odds do you put on your scenario (these 5 prospects contributing significantly to a future "great season" where we are postseason favorites)? And what are the underlying numbers you would use to arrive at that figure?"

 I don't recall differentiating their would be contribution to a great season but any season but the odds are certainly at least 50/50 it's a better season than this one. You will have to show me where I suggested their contribution would come when we are the division favorites. I have said repeatedly that the division favorite or winning the division is not a great measure. That's not the goal by which to measure, IMO. Are we trying to build a great team or win a very weak division. If you modify the definition of success to be winning a playoff series the odds get very thin.

 

We all know those odds are very difficult to determine/predict the future contribution of a prospect or group of prospects. It's not difficult to determine this season is very likely lost and therefore there is little risk associated with trading pending free agents. I would define this as the cost of trading those players for the purposes of this conversation. For this minimal cost we added 5 players, all with a relatively low probability of actually making it to the ML. However, if one turns into an average ML player the benefit is of value for 6 years, not 1 year. Somehow, I can't get you to grasp the value proposition of keeping these players is a combined 3 years, and two of those combined years is a year with an extremely low probability of winning a playoff series. No, we don't know things will improve and therefore these future players might also be contributing to a poor team but it's a mathematical certainty that passing on these opportunities reduces our chances of being better in the future. 

[alarp33]

 Since Friday July 27; 

 

Indians 17-6 (5-2 vs Twins)

Twins 11-12 (2-5 vs Indians)

 

You could reverse those head to head results, putting the Twins at a solid 14-9 in last 23 (much higher than their Win % was Season to Date) and they still would be trailing in the AL Central race by double digits. 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Since Friday July 27; 

 

Indians 17-6 (5-2 vs Twins)

Twins 11-12 (2-5 vs Indians)

 

You could reverse those head to head results, putting the Twins at a solid 14-9 in last 23 (much higher than their Win % was Season to Date) and they still would be trailing in the AL Central race by double digits. 

This is what many of us feared would happen, I think, and why we wanted to sell.

 

The Twins were hanging on, chasing a Cleveland team that just needed to fix its bullpen and get its head straight. They fixed the bullpen and the writing was on the wall.

[Squirrel]

 

 Since Friday July 27; 

 

Indians 17-6 (5-2 vs Twins)

Twins 11-12 (2-5 vs Indians)

 

You could reverse those head to head results, putting the Twins at a solid 14-9 in last 23 (much higher than their Win % was Season to Date) and they still would be trailing in the AL Central race by double digits. 

I'm not arguing for or against the sell, because it is what it is. But I'm not sure it's really fair to say, 'See? Selling was the right thing to do given our record since then.' We don't know what would have been with the pieces that are gone, particularly Escobar and Lynn who seems to be pitching with consistant goodness. But then, if they had stayed here, no telling how they would have performed, either. Yeah, I agree, catching Cleveland was going to be an uphill fight, made even steeper with the tweaking they did, and as I said in the first sentence, not going to argue right or wrong here, but I don't think comparing post sell records is exactly an accurate argument supporting the sell because it's a different team now than it was then.

[alarp33]

 

I'm not arguing for or against the sell, because it is what it is. But I'm not sure it's really fair to say, 'See? Selling was the right thing to do given our record since then.' We don't know what would have been with the pieces that are gone, particularly Escobar and Lynn who seems to be pitching with consistant goodness. But then, if they had stayed here, no telling how they would have performed, either. Yeah, I agree, catching Cleveland was going to be an uphill fight, made even steeper with the tweaking they did, and as I said in the first sentence, not going to argue right or wrong here, but I don't think comparing post sell records is exactly an accurate argument supporting the sell because it's a different team now than it was then.

 

You are missing the point. Cleveland's record is not effected by the "sell".  Heck, you can give the Twins all 7 games (making the Twins 16-7 in last 23) vs the Tribe heads up if you want. And they STILL would be 8 games back

Edited August 21, 2018 by alarp33

[Squirrel]

 

You are missing the point. Cleveland's record is not effected by the "sell".  Heck, you can give the Twins all 7 games (making the Twins 16-7 in last 23) vs the Tribe heads up if you want. And they STILL would not have made up any ground in the AL Central since July 27. 

I'm not missing any point. I get it ... catching Cleveland was going to be tough. I already said that, did I not? And I said it was going to be worse with the tweaking they did. But you can't know what would or would not have happened with certainty because the team now is different. They sold and didn't buy. You don't know what would have happened had they bought a piece or two or three if that's what decision was made instead. I just think it's a pointless argument, because right or wrong, it is what it is.

[alarp33]

 

I'm not missing any point. I get it ... catching Cleveland was going to be tough. I already said that, did I not? And I said it was going to be worse with the tweaking they did. But you can't know what would or would not have happened with certainty because the team now is different. They sold and didn't buy. You don't know what would have happened had they bought a piece or two or three if that's what decision was made instead. I just think it's a pointless argument, because right or wrong, it is what it is.

 

You are only discussing the Twins... like I said, they could have SWEPT 7 games vs Cleveland and would trail the Indians by 8 games still.  

 

You are correct, I don't know what would have happened with the Twins... but I don't need to know what would have happened with the Twins if Cleveland continues to win at this clip. Again, I gave the Twins a 7 game sweep of Cle in my hypothetical and they still would trail in the division by 8 games.

 

Unless you are suggesting the Twins would have simply never lost again starting on July 31... what they would or would not have done simply is irrelevant if Cle wins at this clip

[USAFChief]

 

You are only discussing the Twins... like I said, they could have SWEPT 7 games vs Cleveland and would trail the Indians by 8 games still.  

 

You are correct, I don't know what would have happened with the Twins... but I don't need to know what would have happened with the Twins if Cleveland continues to win at this clip. Again, I gave the Twins a 7 game sweep of Cle in my hypothetical and they still would trail in the division by 8 games.

 

Unless you are suggesting the Twins would have simply never lost again starting on July 31... what they would or would not have done simply is irrelevant if Cle wins at this clip

Did you, or the Twins front office, know during the last week of July what Cleveland's record would be over the next three weeks?

 

Do you know, today, what Cleveland's record will be through the end of the season?

 

 

[alarp33]

 

I'm not missing any point. I get it ... catching Cleveland was going to be tough. I already said that, did I not? And I said it was going to be worse with the tweaking they did. But you can't know what would or would not have happened with certainty because the team now is different. They sold and didn't buy. You don't know what would have happened had they bought a piece or two or three if that's what decision was made instead. I just think it's a pointless argument, because right or wrong, it is what it is.

 

Cleveland is on pace to win 95 games. 

 

On July 27 (the day they traded Escobar) the Twins were 48-54. 

 

In order to match Cleveland's 95 wins, the Twins would have needed to finish the season 47-13. Are you suggesting that was a legitimate possibility and we don't know yet if the Sell was a good idea or bad?

[alarp33]

 

Did you, or the Twins front office, know during the last week of July what Cleveland's record would be over the next three weeks?

 

Do you know, today, what Cleveland's record will be through the end of the season?

 

 

Umm no, if I knew exacts like that I would be making a lot of money in Vegas. But I do understand probabilities and that Cle had a better roster and extremely easy schedule. 

 

Are you suggesting the Twins FO made the wrong decision? Are you suggesting its never ok to trade players because you never know exacts of what the future holds?

Edited August 21, 2018 by alarp33

[USAFChief]

 

Umm no, if I knew exacts like that I would be making a lot of money in Vegas. But I do understand probabilities and that Cle had a better roster and extremely easy schedule. 

 

Are you suggesting the Twins FO made the wrong decision? Are you suggesting its never ok to trade players because you never know exacts of what the future holds?

I have stated repeatedly that I think it was a mistake for the Twins to sell off the 2018 season.

 

 

[alarp33]

 

I have stated repeatedly that I think it was a mistake for the Twins to sell off the 2018 season.

 

Because you wanted to give Dozier / Escobar QO's? Clearly this was not a playoff team with or without the sell off.  Unless of course you think a 48-54 team had a 47-13 run in them

Edited August 21, 2018 by alarp33

[TheLeviathan]

Part of the argument for "not sell" was that we had so many head-to-head games with Cleveland.  As alarp is showing, even in the best case scenario of those head-to-head games....we are still 8 games back.  Why?  Because Cleveland fixed their one glaring hole and are winning like crazy.  There is nothing the Twins could do about that, even if they had bought more assets.  

 

What that shows is how long the odds truly were, even in optimistic scenarios.   If you're being honest as a "don't sell!" person - at some point you have to at least acknowledge some of the facts/probabilities at play here.  Even in best case scenarios the Twins were still well under water in terms of their chances.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Part of the argument for "not sell" was that we had so many head-to-head games with Cleveland. 

That was a smaller point in the argument.

 

If you're being honest as a "don't sell!" person - at some point you have to at least acknowledge some of the facts/probabilities at play here.

Those have always been acknowledged. From the very start.

[Squirrel]

Moderator's Note: "I Told You So" is not respectful, and is not acceptable posting style at this site. It leads to bickering, rather than change any minds. After having a moderator discussion on this thread we decided to close it.