Second place

[AlwaysinModeration]

Today is Tuesday, August 13. The Twins have fallen into second place in the central for the first time since, I believe, April 19, nearly four months ago, when the Twins were 9-7 and Cleveland was 11-7. Let’s hope this is a short-lived stay in second place, and after tonight, the team re-emerges in their rightful spot atop the central division.

[bighat]

Ugh, I saw the Cleveland score this morning and was thinking the same thing. Here's hoping this sparks some much-needed fire in the Twins clubhouse. Fingers crossed regarding tonight's game in Milwaukee.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't think it's lack of fire that's the issue..... Lack of pitching? Not hitting at a historic rate? Bad baserunnung? Those seem like more likely issues.

[laloesch]

 

I don't think it's lack of fire that's the issue..... Lack of pitching? Not hitting at a historic rate? Bad baserunnung? Those seem like more likely issues.

 

It's the pitching. Its still the Achilles heel of this team.

[scottz]

 

I don't think it's lack of fire that's the issue..... Lack of pitching? Not hitting at a historic rate? Bad baserunnung? Those seem like more likely issues.

 

It's the pitching. Its still the Achilles heel of this team.

 

Pitching and baserunning - or perhaps, base run coaching.

 

Also, this is probably not the thread to re-hash that send of Adrianza in the 9th, but when your primary team strength is hitting, and your primary team weakness is bullpen, maximizing the chances for the former and minimizing the chances for the latter seems like the way to go. That would mean to not send the runner there unless you are at least very confident he'll be safe.

 

Also, it's the pitching.

[bighat]

 

Pitching and baserunning - or perhaps, base run coaching.

 

Also, this is probably not the thread to re-hash that send of Adrianza in the 9th, but when your primary team strength is hitting, and your primary team weakness is bullpen, maximizing the chances for the former and minimizing the chances for the latter seems like the way to go. That would mean to not send the runner there unless you are at least very confident he'll be safe.

 

Also, it's the pitching.

 

Not allowing a no-out grand slam in the 10th inning would have also helped.

 

I'm kinda done with the whole Diaz thing, horse was dead by Sunday night. It's Tuesday morning already! Let's win today!

[SpicyGarvSauce]

It is pitching, and has been pitching...going all the way back to November.

[Winston Smith]

Only 2 games up in the wild card.

[sampleSizeOfOne]

There are worse places to be.

[bighat]

 

Only 2 games up in the wild card.

 

Well, 2 games up for the #1 WC spot. I think we're 4 games ahead right now as far as making the playoffs, in general.

 

Milwaukee is just a half-game out of their own WC spot as well. A lot to play for tonight....

[Jham]

The front office was actually really honest initially when they stated their single goal was to create a sustainable competitive baseball team. Not a champion. Fans come out for pennant races whether you're 3 down or 13 up. Reminds me of the "get to know em, gotta see em" days of trying to win "the twins way". Basically it's better to be cheap and competitive than the Yankees. They called themselves small market enough times that we all believed it. The goal is to win the amount of games necessary to generate fan interest. The end result of the season doesn't really matter much.

[Vanimal46]

 

For those that say it's not a "collapse". It's potentially a historic collapse.

[Mike Sixel]

It is pitching, and has been pitching...going all the way back to November.

Going all the way back to the first Terry Ryan years..... Certainly since this front office got here.

 

Going into next year they have Berrios and?

[SwainZag]

 

For those that say it's not a "collapse". It's potentially a historic collapse.

 

I will not look at anything as a collapse until they at least have a losing month or at least a losing stretch.  5/6 right now is by far their worst stretch of the season.  Our friends the Indians have won 38 of their last 52 games.  That's a pace to win 118 games.  It's taken nearly a third of the season of a team playing on par with historic pace just to over take the Twins by a 1/2 game.  If the Twins finish with their current winning % and have 98 wins and don't win the division is it really a collapse?

[Vanimal46]

I will not look at anything as a collapse until they at least have a losing month or at least a losing stretch. 5/6 right now is by far their worst stretch of the season. Our friends the Indians have won 38 of their last 52 games. That's a pace to win 118 games. It's taken nearly a third of the season of a team playing on par with historic pace just to over take the Twins by a 1/2 game. If the Twins finish with their current winning % and have 98 wins and don't win the division is it really a collapse?

Yes, IMO it's a collapse. And it's backed up by data. Hasn't been done since 1951. Don't know what else to tell ya.

[wabene]

I will not look at anything as a collapse until they at least have a losing month or at least a losing stretch.  5/6 right now is by far their worst stretch of the season.  Our friends the Indians have won 38 of their last 52 games.  That's a pace to win 118 games.  It's taken nearly a third of the season of a team playing on par with historic pace just to over take the Twins by a 1/2 game.  If the Twins finish with their current winning % and have 98 wins and don't win the division is it really a collapse?

Hard to argue with this.

[USAFChief]

 

I will not look at anything as a collapse until they at least have a losing month or at least a losing stretch.  5/6 right now is by far their worst stretch of the season.  Our friends the Indians have won 38 of their last 52 games.  That's a pace to win 118 games.  It's taken nearly a third of the season of a team playing on par with historic pace just to over take the Twins by a 1/2 game.  If the Twins finish with their current winning % and have 98 wins and don't win the division is it really a collapse?

They haven't lost the ALC yet, but... if they do, losing an 11.5 game lead is historic no matter whether you call it a "collapse" or not.

 

And for the record...it'd be a collapse. 

[markos]

 

They haven't lost the ALC yet, but... if they do, losing an 11.5 game lead is historic no matter whether you call it a "collapse" or not.

 

And for the record...it'd be a collapse. 

Do you think the 2006 season was an epic collapse by the Tigers? Or a amazing comeback by the Twins? The Tigers were ahead of the Twins by 12.5 games on May 27, but lost the division by 1 game despite winning 95 games overall. (They don't qualify for Stark's factoid because the White Sox spent most of the season <10 games behind the Tigers)

[markos]

Also, if the Twins lose the division to the Indians, it would be 4th time in the last 8 years that a team failed to maintain an at least 9.5 game lead in the standings. Hard to describe something that happens basically every other season as "epic".

[USAFChief]

 

Do you think the 2006 season was an epic collapse by the Tigers? Or a amazing comeback by the Twins? The Tigers were ahead of the Twins by 12.5 games on May 27, but lost the division by 1 game despite winning 95 games overall. (They don't qualify for Stark's factoid because the White Sox spent most of the season <10 games behind the Tigers)

Detroit went 13-16 in August, 12-16 in September/October. They lost their last four regular season games to cough up a division lead.

 

So yeah, collapse. Whether you end up with 95 games or 85, matters not. A collapse is a collapse.

 

Not to mention, their division lead was 3.5 on May 27th. Just not over the Twins.

 

If the Twins end up not winning the ALC, there's really no other way to describe it, IMO. An 11.5 game lead. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

In my opinion, it’s not a collapse in the sense of win percentage, but it’s definitely a collapse in the sense that the front office probably assumed that they had this thing wrapped up with a bow tied around it.

[nicksaviking]

I don't like how things are currently turning out, but honestly, had the Twins run away with the division like they appeared to be doing early in the year, I wouldn't have felt terribly comfortable come the playoffs. I like that they have to face sustained adversity. If they battle through it and come out on top, I'm going to feel better about their chances of winning a playoff series.

[Woody Wins]

This possible ending would be historic, but not as bad as it seems to have been made out to be:

 

1978 Yankees down 14 games on July 20th

1995 Mariners down 13 games on Aug 3rd

1993 Braves down 10 games on July 23rd

1969 Mets down 10 games on Aug 14th 

And the mentioned Giants down 13 games on Aug 12th

 

But I believe the Twins will rally and when everyone is healthy by Aug 26th, they will roll on and win the division.

 

[nicksaviking]

 

Detroit went 13-16 in August, 12-16 in September/October. They lost their last four regular season games to cough up a division lead.

 

So yeah, collapse. Whether you end up with 95 games or 85, matters not. A collapse is a collapse.

 

Not to mention, their division lead was 3.5 on May 27th. Just not over the Twins.

 

If the Twins end up not winning the ALC, there's really no other way to describe it, IMO. An 11.5 game lead. 

 

I'll probably wait to see the final win totals. The Twins were never going to win 120 games; in my opinion whether you win 95 games or 85 games matters a great deal.

[Dantes929]

 

For those that say it's not a "collapse". It's potentially a historic collapse.

Ok, that is a rather misleading but interesting fact.   I know for certain the Twins were 12 games back on July 15, 2006 and ended up in 1st place.   Turns out it is factually true because the Twins were in 3rd place at the time.   In fact. on August 7th the Twins were 10.5 games out of 1st place and still in 3rd place at the time.   Makes me wonder if other teams were as far behind and in 3rd or even 4th place before making their come backs which would make this whole conversation a historical oddity rather than historic collapse.     If the Twins, like the Tigers that year, gave up that big a lead but still got to the WS will we call it a historic collapse?

[Dantes929]

 

I'll probably wait to see the final win totals. The Twins were never going to win 120 games; in my opinion whether you win 95 games or 85 games matters a great deal.

This.    In theory the twins could end up 111-51 and still end up in 2nd place.   I guess everyone has their own standards but in my opinion you can have a historic comeback without having a historic collapse and vice versa.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

This possible ending would be historic, but not as bad as it seems to have been made out to be:

 

1978 Yankees down 14 games on July 20th

1995 Mariners down 13 games on Aug 3rd

1993 Braves down 10 games on July 23rd

1969 Mets down 10 games on Aug 14th 

And the mentioned Giants down 13 games on Aug 12th

 

But I believe the Twins will rally and when everyone is healthy by Aug 26th, they will roll on and win the division.

Good post. Hopefully this helps explain why I was so bothered by them selling last July.

 

There are also plenty of near misses.

 

The 2005 season might be a good comp. In 2005, the White Sox had a 15.0 game lead on Cleveland on August 1st. By late September, that lead got as slim as 1.5 games, with a season ending series against Cleveland looming. Alas, Cleveland could not make up that final difference, and the Sox won the division and then the World Series.

[Vanimal46]

Ok, that is a rather misleading but interesting fact. I know for certain the Twins were 12 games back on July 15, 2006 and ended up in 1st place. Turns out it is factually true because the Twins were in 3rd place at the time. In fact. on August 7th the Twins were 10.5 games out of 1st place and still in 3rd place at the time. Makes me wonder if other teams were as far behind and in 3rd or even 4th place before making their come backs which would make this whole conversation a historical oddity rather than historic collapse. If the Twins, like the Tigers that year, gave up that big a lead but still got to the WS will we call it a historic collapse?

I read a stat that 35% of all stats are misleading to prove a point...

 

Just like here! It's amazing the stats and mental gymnastics to justify blowing an 11.5 game lead in 2 months isn't a big deal.

[ashbury]

I don't like how things are currently turning out, but honestly, had the Twins run away with the division like they appeared to be doing early in the year, I wouldn't have felt terribly comfortable come the playoffs. I like that they have to face sustained adversity. If they battle through it and come out on top, I'm going to feel better about their chances of winning a playoff series.

The team hasn't felt like they're ready to win, for some time. They feel more like 1984 than 1987 to me, if you want an analogy. I think the scenario you describe is unlikely, but would be a better indication of being ready to win than the first two months of the season were.

[Mr. Brooks]

I read a stat that 35% of all stats are misleading to prove a point...

 

Just like here! It's amazing the stats and mental gymnastics to justify blowing an 11.5 game lead in 2 months isn't a big deal.

I mean the Twins are only a little bit below .500 since June 2nd. They obviously have no fault in this whatsoever.

When you play almost .500 ball and that's still not good enough, you just have to tip your cap to the other team.