Is a .500 season possible?

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's unlikely but the Twins have been playing pretty good ball lately (against mostly bad teams, but still).

 

Is .500 a possibility given this roster and its relative lack of experience?

 

I know some people want to see losses rack up for the draft pick but this team isn't full of rookies. There are enough young-but-experienced players who could use a strong finish to the season to get into the right mindset for 2019.

 

I think this team could easily be a 78-79 win team at season's end but really hope they can put together a small run and end in the 81-82 win range.

[ashbury]

It's late August and they're only 5 down at this writing. Of course they could do it.

 

I see very little chance of them catching Boston, though.

[Ben Noble]

yes

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's late August and they're only 5 down at this writing. Of course they could do it.

 

I see very little chance of them catching Boston, though.

Yeah, I shouldn't have used the word "possible". Obviously, a .500 season is possible.

 

Whether it's a reasonable goal is the real question.

[Vanimal46]

As a fan I want my favorite teams to be historically good, or biblically bad. So since they've been out of it for a while, chasing the better draft pick is more interesting to me.

 

I also realize people's jobs are on the line and they want to win every game regardless if they're contending or not.

 

Being a 78-82 win team is boring, and forgettable.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

As a fan I want my favorite teams to be historically good, or biblically bad. So since they've been out of it for a while, chasing the better draft pick is more interesting to me.

The thing is that they won't be great or awful. That's off the table, as the AL has some historically good and bad teams this season.

 

We're basically watching a team that might be the 10th pick in next year's draft or the 15th pick in next year's draft. They're not going to break into the top 6-7 picks no matter what happens.

 

So I want to see the wins because a good drafting team isn't going to make or break a system with a +4 draft slot next season. They'll get a good player or they won't, the slot become mostly irrelevant in that range of players.

[ashbury]

Whether it's a reasonable goal is the real question.

Sure. Aim for the stars.

 

[Vanimal46]

The thing is that they won't be great or awful. That's off the table, as the AL has some historically good and bad teams this season.

 

We're basically watching a team that might be the 10th pick in next year's draft or the 15th pick in next year's draft. They're not going to break into the top 6-7 picks no matter what happens.

 

So I want to see the wins because a good drafting team isn't going to make or break a system with a +4 draft slot next season. They'll get a good player or they won't, the slot become mostly irrelevant in that range of players.

Sure, but I'll still be more interested drafting at 10 overall than 15. I'm not going to feel any better about how this season went if they finish with 81+ wins.

[scottz]

It's a disappointing year in any case, but I always feel better adding wins. Let's do it.

[John Kelsey]

I think they finish at 79 wins. 

[big dog]

I think young players, and we certainly have quite a few, benefit from winning.  Let's win.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Sure, but I'll still be more interested drafting at 10 overall than 15.

Is it, though? Honest question. You're not getting in on the top 4-5 guys (and often, only the top 2-3 guys are truly interesting before the picture gets muddy) but you're not far enough back to pick at the bottom of the round where it becomes entirely muddy.

 

Anything from 10 to 20 is basically the same to me. At that point it comes down to scouting and draft strategy (eg. you overpay a guy to get him away from college or you underpay and do similar things in later rounds).

[Vanimal46]

Is it, though? Honest question. You're not getting in on the top 4-5 guys (and often, only the top 2-3 guys are truly interesting before the picture gets muddy) but you're not far enough back to pick at the bottom of the round where it becomes entirely muddy.

 

Anything from 10 to 20 is basically the same to me. At that point it comes down to scouting and draft strategy (eg. you overpay a guy to get him away from college or you underpay and do similar things in later rounds).

Well yeah, they would have 5 fewer teams in front of them that could potentially draft the player they want. Or, as we've seen from this regime, they'll be creative with the draft pool allotment. Might as well get a (slightly) bigger pool of money drafting #10 overall than at 15 or 20.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Well yeah, they would have 5 fewer teams in front of them that could potentially draft the player they want. Or, as we've seen from this regime, they'll be creative with the draft pool allotment. Might as well get a (slightly) bigger pool of money drafting #10 overall than at 15 or 20.

Is that worth the trade-off of having your young players stumble against MLB opposition?

[Loosey]

Changing the subject a little bit and piggybacking onto the historically bad and good teams statements.  

 

Now, I never feel bad for the Yankees but could you imagine being 32 games over .500, yet 9.5 games out of first place?

 

I don't know how I would deal with that as a fan.  

 

[Vanimal46]

Is that worth the trade-off of having your young players stumble against MLB opposition?

Probably. Has anyone written a case study to find out if (mostly meaningless) wins in September translates to better success the following season?

 

If it actually helps, then sure, go for wins. I don't believe it matters. Buxton for example finished last year on a great note, then fell flat on his face this in April again.

[Respy]

Is it possible? Yes

 

Is it likely or reasonable?  It's not unreasonable considering Minnesota's remaining strength of schedule.

 

I, too, was thinking about the draft pick thing.  They are 11th from the bottom, and about 10 games ahead of the 5th-6th worst teams.  I don't think they could play bad enough to get a 'high' draft pick.  So they'll be in the 8-12 range most likely, which starts becoming a crap shoot at that point.

 

I say, play your best and get these young guys some experience and start evaluating for next year.

[Doomtints]

 

It's unlikely but the Twins have been playing pretty good ball lately (against mostly bad teams, but still).

 

Is .500 a possibility given this roster and its relative lack of experience?

 

I know some people want to see losses rack up for the draft pick but this team isn't full of rookies. There are enough young-but-experienced players who could use a strong finish to the season to get into the right mindset for 2019.

 

I think this team could easily be a 78-79 win team at season's end but really hope they can put together a small run and end in the 81-82 win range.

 

They are 59-64 now on August 20th. Your question is: can the Twins pull off a 5-game swing in 39 games? They should be able to, but can they really?

Home: White Sox (5), Athletics (4), Royals (3), Yankees (3), Tigers (3)

I figure the Twins will win 9-13 of these 18 games.

Away: White Sox (2), Indians (3), Rangers (3), Astros (3), Royals (4), Tigers (3), Athletics (3)
 

I figure the Twins will win 9-13 of these 21 games.
 

Worst case: 77 wins

Best case: 85 wins

My estimate for most likely case: 78 wins (Thanks, red-hot Oakland)

 

Applying the PERT method to these three estimates would tell you to budget for 79 wins, or not quite .500.

 

But at least they will be playing ~.500 ball the rest of the season, so they will be fun to watch.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Probably. Has anyone written a case study to find out if (mostly meaningless) wins in September translates to better success the following season?

If it actually helps, then sure, go for wins. I don't believe it matters. Buxton for example finished last year on a great note, then fell flat on his face this in April again.

It's not only about young vets playing well, it's about guys like Moya, Gonsalves, Stewart, et al crashing and burning in their first lengthy MLB stints. And we're still 10 games from September and expanded rosters. Most teams are playing straight-up right now, not padding their lineups with AAAA players.

 

I'll take strong performances from them over watching the Twins pick three slots higher next June.

[SF Twins Fan]

I often find it very difficult to cheer for a team I like to lose even if it means a better draft pick. I would say it's even more difficult when the player they draft won't be playing for the team for 4 + years. I say go for the W's, try to end the season on a good note but don't let that take away from giving as many young players an opportunity to play as possible.

[Vanimal46]

It's not only about young vets playing well, it's about guys like Moya, Gonsalves, Stewart, et al crashing and burning in their first lengthy MLB stints.

 

I'll take strong performances from them over watching the Twins pick three slots higher next June.

Sure. If their strong performances results in an extra win or 2, good for them. Isn't this a different conversation though? I thought we were just talking about the team trying to win as many games as they can so they can head into 2019 feeling good.

 

To clarify this point: I think it's more important to play the younger players, wins be damned. If they have strong performances that results in a couple more wins, woo-hoo!

 

If you truly want them to compete and be an over .500 team, they'll continue to do what they were doing in July... Playing the veterans and keeping young players on a short leash.

[ashbury]

Now that you've clarified your initial questions, as to which way each of us is rooting for things to work out, from here to season's end...

 

First, I always root for wins, as I enjoy that angle of rooting better than the alternatives. Waving a white flag and bringing up prospects is one thing. Intentional tanking is something I'll nearly always disagree with on principle, as being opposed to the spirit of athletics.

 

Beyond that, though, I think the value of picking a few slots better in next June's draft, or the Rule 5, or also in any waiver claims that may be expedient during the off-season, is exceeded by the value of some players we'll be counting on for next year coming through for us in September to make a .500 or better record come about. If we were to finish at .500 because of guys with expiring contracts, I'd feel differently, but we mostly don't have those now.

[yarnivek1972]

38 games remaining. 7 against Oakland, 3 on the road. 3 against the Yankees. 3 in Houston and in Cleveland. All teams that need to win to improve their playoff chances or seeding. Even Cleveland can still catch the Astros (or whoever wins the west) and have home field for their LDS. They will be lucky to win 7 of those 16 IMO. 3 in Arlington. Never a fun place to play in the heat of summer. The Rangers have a slightly worse record than the Twins but have had a much tougher division schedule. Maybe steal one. The other 19 are division opponents behind them in the standings. So, far, they have played those teams slightly better than .500. If that continues, they could get 10 or 11 wins there.

 

Add it up, and I get 18 or 19 wins, which would be .500 from this point out. To finish at .500 for the season, they would need to go 22-17. I could see maybe getting 20 more wins. 22 I don’t see.

[yarnivek1972]

I would also agree that wins and losses take a back seat to individual performances, particularly for those that are key to 2019 and beyond.

[nicksaviking]

 

Anything from 10 to 20 is basically the same to me. At that point it comes down to scouting and draft strategy (eg. you overpay a guy to get him away from college or you underpay and do similar things in later rounds).

 

It's probably not the pick that matters so much as the money. Picking 10th instead of 20th means your draft pool his higher than 20 other teams.

 

But I'm not too concerned with the draft, other teams are clearly tanking and have a huge head-start, I don't think the Twins could crack the top ten if they tried. And so-far-so-good for the front office's draft strategy, these guys seem to know some pretty good angles from either end of the draft position.

 

On the other hand .500 doesn't do too much for me either. I'm long bored with mediocre teams; I'll take them seriously when they have a legit shot at the title. I'm still watching to see the young guys, but the outcome of the games aren't terribly concerning to me. I'll be interested when the games have some consequence to them. It's been a long time since I've felt that; I didn't really even feel it last year.

[wsnydes]

I'm more interested in seeing the young talent showcased than wins/losses, per se. But I'm all for playing the game the way it should be played in order to win those games within that context. It is a fine line though. I want the young guys to learn how to win at the highest level first and foremost, but that doesn't mean that something nonsensical should be done in order to achieve that.

 

I'm adamantly opposed to tanking. I don't really see playing young players in lieu of veterans, particularly those not going to be around past this season, as tanking. That may be semantics to some, but it's typically very clear in my mind. 

 

If this team is able to get back to .500, it'll be because underperforming veterans have finally given way to other players that are producing. Those players could be a Forsythe type, or it could be a Gonsalves or Austin making the most of his opportunity or a Sano coming back from the depths of A ball to climb back to his former prowess. If that gets the team back to .500, cool! If not, oh well and hopefully the experience pays off next year.

[Platoon]

If they can win those games AND evaluate some youth at the same time, go for it. If it requires MOY to continue to manage all games in SGWS (seventh game of WS) mode, and favoring aged vets over evaluation, then no!

[howieramone2]

The last thing a good team learns, is how to win. If the search committee had picked me, I would say go for the wins. 

 

After listening to Levine on Inside Twins several weeks ago, it sounded to me they were going to hold open auditions.

[Craig Arko]

The goal is reasonable, ambitious, and plausibly within reach. If this team is going to improve for next year the time to start is right now.

[gman]

I don't see any rookies being added to the everyday lineup the rest of the season barring several major injuries. Garver is as close as it comes to this and I hpe he starts 3 out 4 games or better at catcher the rest of the way. I would prefer to see rookie starting pitchers making 3 out of very 6 starts the rest of the seaon. I would also prefer to see more relief pitchers come up from the minors and prove their case one way or the other. 

 

If we can somehow play 500 ball with those stipulations then great. But don't play guys who won't be here next year just to play breakeven ball.