Would our perception of this team be different if we were at the end of a rebuild?

[Rik19753]

If you ask the average Twins fan what they think of the season so far, I'm sure the answer would not be very positive. Even though there have been some stretches of good baseball, more often than not they are immediately followed by a losing streak leaving us frustrated that the team can't maintain a steady level of success.

However, I feel like we are letting expectations get in the way of what might actually be the dawn of a new and exciting era of Twins baseball. If for one moment we forget that we play in a terrible division that we should be running away with, forget that the last 2 years of Twins baseball has largely been a disappointment, and imagine that we are coming off a rebuild, wouldn't we be much more excited for this team?

The Reds, who have enjoyed a winning season on the backs of rookies like McLain, Steer and Cruz, are seen as a tremendous success. The fans are excited about the team not only because they are good this year but because they can dream on a brighter future lead by their rookies.

The Twins, on the other hand, have a similar record as the Reds, and have similarly gotten great production from their rookies, yet the vibe is mostly negative because they were built to win this year and have largely performed under expectations. But if we choose to think about this season merely as a stepping stone for a better and brighter future led by our rookies, maybe we can simply appreciate this team more and give them a pass for some of their shortcomings.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't have high expectations or that the FO should be let off the hook for building a mediocre team. I just think that the vibe surrounding this team would be completely different if we thought of this team as a young group spearheaded by Lewis, Wallner, Julien and Kirilloff as opposed to a team playing below expectations led by Correa and Buxton. 

[Linus]

For me the disappointment is rooted in the fact the FO has had seven years to build something and they really haven’t gained much of any ground. Many ways to argue the details but I get back this. We have a slightly over 500 team with a flawed lineup and deeply flawed bullpen. More than enough time to have constructed a better overall team. I am excited about some of the younger players but don’t really have any confidence that we will ever have a good much less great bullpen or that our offensive approach will ever have much consistency. 

[Craig Arko]

I doubt much could change people’s perceptions.

[ashbury]

Of course it would be different. A .500 team whose record involves young players taking some lumps but now might be prepared to go on an upswing for a few years to come, is different from a veteran-laden team with the same record and likely to get worse if the status quo is maintained.

Go to any site that lists 2023 teams' player stats, and sort by plate appearances (batters) or innings (pitchers).  Then look at the ages.  You went with Cincinnati as the comparison team.  Our top 6 batters by usage ALL are older than ANY of the Reds' top 8 batters.  The story with the pitchers is slightly better, with 3 of the 5 Twins with the most innings being age 27 and 2 of age 33-35, but the Reds top 5 are 4 arms age 23-25 and one at 29.  Better days are more likely in store for the Reds than for the Twins.

It's a supposition that some new wave of rookies will supplant our veterans, because with a couple of exceptions everyone who's going to be any good in 2024 is already up.  Meanwhile in Cincinnati you don't even have to suppose.

That why I'm "not very positive" on this team.

[SwainZag]

2 hours ago, ashbury said:

Of course it would be different. A .500 team whose record involves young players taking some lumps but now might be prepared to go on an upswing for a few years to come, is different from a veteran-laden team with the same record and likely to get worse if the status quo is maintained.

Go to any site that lists 2023 teams' player stats, and sort by plate appearances (batters) or innings (pitchers).  Then look at the ages.  You went with Cincinnati as the comparison team.  Our top 6 batters by usage ALL are older than ANY of the Reds' top 8 batters.  The story with the pitchers is slightly better, with 3 of the 5 Twins with the most innings being age 27 and 2 of age 33-35, but the Reds top 5 are 4 arms age 23-25 and one at 29.  Better days are more likely in store for the Reds than for the Twins.

It's a supposition that some new wave of rookies will supplant our veterans, because with a couple of exceptions everyone who's going to be any good in 2024 is already up.  Meanwhile in Cincinnati you don't even have to suppose.

That why I'm "not very positive" on this team.

Cincinatti has also lost 86+ games 6 of the last 10 years and has had 2 winnings season (2 and 3 games over .500) in that time span.  Five 94+ loss seasons.  That's a lot of losing, a lot of high draft picks and a lot of talent traded for prospects.  For all intents and purposes, they SHOULD have a younger team than the Twins.  I'm not sure if that is the direct comparison I would make, and the same goes for the O's.  You don't need a roster full of young players to succeed either.