Revisiting the Final Inning of the 2023 Season

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

So you're saying a team who scores more runs is going to have a better chance to win.  Got it ;)  By this logic I'll snarkily say that teams who can either out homer their opponents OR outscore them a different way are 83-0!  

What's the record for teams who outscore their opponent in non-HR runs?  I'm guessing these percentages are pretty consistent over the last 100 years of baseball.  I don't think they're particularly meaningful.  It would be like saying, when a football team scores more TDs than their opponent they're more likely to win the game.  Yep, agreed.  Even so, football coaches don't throw for the end zone on every play though.  

 

I don't understand the argument here. The obvious idea behind that stat is that hitting for power is the best way to score runs. The teams that didn't hit as many home runs (the teams that win 14.5% of the time) were scoring their runs (or failing to score any runs) in a different manner. You first sentence is literally agreeing with the idea that hitting for power should be their strategy since you're equating hitting more home runs to scoring more runs. Really confused by what you're trying to spin this into.

[chpettit19]

48 minutes ago, Schmoeman5 said:

The Twins won 86 games. They were top 5 in homers. Why only 86 wins? When you find yourself in a close ball game against better pitching do you change your approach?  They did against Gausman. By laying off the splitter out of the strike zone which allowed them some good swings on fastballs. You're arguing just to argue about out homering your opponent.  When you limit yourself to only 1 option to score regardless of the situation is crazy. And it's also why they got bounced. Hey look! They won their games when they out homered their opponents but they lost when they didn't. They need to double down. They might stike out 2000 times this year but they hit more homers. So it must be working. 2019. Another perfect example of all or nothing. The recipe is getting guys on base. Then homer. Solo shots look good on the highlight reel. 

You added a whole bunch to this comment while/after I replied. They didn't change their approach against Gausman. Chasing splitters out of the strike zone was never part of their strategy. Getting good pitches to drive (like fastballs in the zone) is their strategy. If they don't get those good pitches then they don't swing. That's the strategy.

You realize that the opposite side of out homering your opponent is to be the team that had to score in other ways, right? I hit 3 home runs and you hit 1. The only way for you to win that game is for you to either have hit a grand slam to my 3 solo home runs, or to have scored more runs doing things a different way. And, in the playoffs, the teams that have to score runs without hitting as many home runs win the game 14.5% of the time. If you want it to be the reason the Twins got bounced, cool. It was the reason the Rangers won the World Series so you can take that however you want.

Yes, getting on base is another important part. Nobody has said it isn't. What you guys have complained about is the strike outs vs the home runs. The home runs are more important as is easily proven by looking at the stats. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be concerned about their extreme K rates last year. It doesn't mean that taking walks or getting singles or anything else simply doesn't matter. It means that home runs are more important than any of those other stats. All the best offenses have the same strategy as the Twins. Know what pitches you handle well and look for them. If you get them look to do maximum damage. The question comes down to who's able to execute on those maximum damage attempts the most. Which comes down to talent. If I can only do damage on fastballs middle middle, but you can do damage on multiple types of pitches in multiple locations because you're more talented than me it's likely you're going to do much better than me at being able to do maximum damage. Doesn't seem like too crazy of an idea.

[Woof Bronzer]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't understand the argument here. The obvious idea behind that stat is that hitting for power is the best way to score runs. The teams that didn't hit as many home runs (the teams that win 14.5% of the time) were scoring their runs (or failing to score any runs) in a different manner. You first sentence is literally agreeing with the idea that hitting for power should be their strategy since you're equating hitting more home runs to scoring more runs. Really confused by what you're trying to spin this into.

Your stat basically says "teams who score more are more likely to win".  Do you find that insightful?  I don't.  Again, I'm guessing teams who score more non HR runs are equally as successful - why aren't you focusing on that as a strategy?  

 

 

[Woof Bronzer]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Yes, getting on base is another important part. Nobody has said it isn't. What you guys have complained about is the strike outs vs the home runs. The home runs are more important as is easily proven by looking at the stats.

There are 3 outcomes for a plate appearance:  putting the ball in play, walking, or striking out.  Eliminating a strikeout can only result in putting the ball in play (reaching base 30% of the time) or walking (100% of the time).  There is a direct correlation between less strikeouts and more guys on base.  

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Your stat basically says "teams who score more are more likely to win".  Do you find that insightful?  I don't.  Again, I'm guessing teams who score more non HR runs are equally as successful - why aren't you focusing on that as a strategy?  

 

 

The stat is showing that teams who score via routes other than HRs win less. Teams who hit fewer HRs than their opponents have to score more non-HR runs to win the game. So the stat is showing that teams that are forced to score more non-HR runs win 14.5% of the time. That's why I'm not focusing on that as a strategy. 

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

There are 3 outcomes for a plate appearance:  putting the ball in play, walking, or striking out.  Eliminating a strikeout can only result in putting the ball in play (reaching base 30% of the time) or walking (100% of the time).  There is a direct correlation between less strikeouts and more guys on base.  

And just getting on base doesn't help unless you come around to score. In the playoffs (this thread is about the final inning in the playoffs) it's a lot harder to come all the way around to score without hitting for power because the pitching is better. There's 1 way to guarantee yourself a run while hitting: hitting a homerun.

I've said numerous times that the Twins struck out too much last year. They need to lower that number. But it's not as bad as people are making it out to be (unless you're strictly speaking about enjoyment watching. I think it's terribly boring watching 3 true outcome offenses). There's a balance that needs to be struck, but striking out is acceptable as long as you can balance it with enough power.

[JD-TWINS]

1 hour ago, Schmoeman5 said:

The Twins won 86 games. They were top 5 in homers. Why only 86 wins

It’s all about trying to be efficient - K’s are up everywhere in baseball & have been for years and nearly in every instance, power guys strike out much more. The Twins problem in ‘23 was an imbalance in HR’s per K with certain individuals.

OBP

.301 - Gallo - 21 HR  - 142 K’s - 6.76K per HR

.369 - Jeffers - 14 HR - 93 K’s - 6.64K per HR

.370 - Wallner - 14 HR - 80 K’s - 5.72K per HR

.280 - Vazquez - 6 HR - 82 K’s - 13.66K per HR

.381 - Julien - 16 HR - 128 K’s - 8.00K per HR

.332 - Kepler - 24 HR - 106 K’s - 4.42 per HR

.335 - Polanco - 14 HR - 88 K’s - 6.29 per HR

.294 - Buxton - 17 HR - 108 K’s - 6.41 per HR

.312 - Correa - 18 HR - 131 K’s - 7.28 per HR

.278 - Taylor - 21 HR - 130 K’s - 6.19 per HR

.372 - Lewis - 15 HR - 55 K’s - 3.67 per HR

.369 - Solano - 5 HR - 100 K’s - 20.00 per HR

.339 - Castro - 9 HR - 99 K’s - 10.00 per HR

.348 - Kirilloff - 11 HR - 80 K’s - 7.27 per HR

.317 - Farmer - 11 HR - 86 K’s - 7.82 per HR

Threshold (the floor) for these levels are arbitrary……I think a minimum acceptable level for a good player is an OBP of .330.

With no defense involved, it’s interesting that it seems Taylor, despite 21 HR should not be pursued at all! Obviously, Gallo should not be pursued. If there’s a possibility to move Vazquez, even at $3-$4M/yr cost he’s not someone to be carried on a roster, offensively.

Farmer has reasonable strikeout/HR ratio & his defense keeps him in play. OBP is subpar.

Correa needed 2-3 more HR & 10 more hits/walks and he would have had an acceptable regular season.

Julien strikes out too much. His OBP saves him……his defense does not add to his value.

Wallner is a bright spot in OBP & power!

Lewis jumps off the page as a budding star!!

Should not consider trading Kepler, even if he didn’t play sound defense!!!

Solano has to be scrutinized due to zero power and limited defense. Inexpensive & solid OBP. Borderline.

Castro’s defensive flexibility lifts him off the borderline status.

Just a different view that picked up momentum as I went - interesting to ponder?

[Schmoeman5]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

You added a whole bunch to this comment while/after I replied. They didn't change their approach against Gausman. Chasing splitters out of the strike zone was never part of their strategy. Getting good pitches to drive (like fastballs in the zone) is their strategy. If they don't get those good pitches then they don't swing. That's the strategy.

You realize that the opposite side of out homering your opponent is to be the team that had to score in other ways, right? I hit 3 home runs and you hit 1. The only way for you to win that game is for you to either have hit a grand slam to my 3 solo home runs, or to have scored more runs doing things a different way. And, in the playoffs, the teams that have to score runs without hitting as many home runs win the game 14.5% of the time. If you want it to be the reason the Twins got bounced, cool. It was the reason the Rangers won the World Series so you can take that however you want.

Yes, getting on base is another important part. Nobody has said it isn't. What you guys have complained about is the strike outs vs the home runs. The home runs are more important as is easily proven by looking at the stats. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be concerned about their extreme K rates last year. It doesn't mean that taking walks or getting singles or anything else simply doesn't matter. It means that home runs are more important than any of those other stats. All the best offenses have the same strategy as the Twins. Know what pitches you handle well and look for them. If you get them look to do maximum damage. The question comes down to who's able to execute on those maximum damage attempts the most. Which comes down to talent. If I can only do damage on fastballs middle middle, but you can do damage on multiple types of pitches in multiple locations because you're more talented than me it's likely you're going to do much better than me at being able to do maximum damage. Doesn't seem like too crazy of an idea.

You're going all over just to try and make the Park quote work. So I was off by 1 on the Twins win. 87. Why does it seem to be such a drastic difference in the playoffs and regular season? The Twins didn't win at a 60% clip all year let alone the 85% and that's with a top 5 statistic wise pitching staff. And I stated that usually playoff games are tighter scoring wise yet this doesn't seem the case for 2023 playoffs. So I really can't explain the difference.It's kind of like the old basketball analogy of win by the jump shot die by the jump shot. But now it's throw up as many 3s as possible. You'll score more points even with a lower %. 

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, Schmoeman5 said:

You're going all over just to try and make the Park quote work. So I was off by 1 on the Twins win. 87. Why does it seem to be such a drastic difference in the playoffs and regular season? The Twins didn't win at a 60% clip all year let alone the 85% and that's with a top 5 statistic wise pitching staff. And I stated that usually playoff games are tighter scoring wise yet this doesn't seem the case for 2023 playoffs. So I really can't explain the difference.It's kind of like the old basketball analogy of win by the jump shot die by the jump shot. But now it's throw up as many 3s as possible. You'll score more points even with a lower %. 

It's a drastic difference in the playoffs because the pitching is better in the playoffs. It's a lot harder to string together multiple walks and hits in an inning against big time pitchers than it is to hit one over the fence here and there.

What is the average difference in scores in the regular season and playoffs? I honestly don't know so I don't know if playoff games are usually tighter scoring or not. Wouldn't be shocked by that, but there are also plenty of blowouts every year.

And, yes, it is like basketball and 3 pointers. It's the mathematically most efficient way to score and thus give yourself the best chance to win. I don't think these things are good for baseball or basketball in an entertainment sense. I've hated 3 true outcome approaches since they started popping up. But I want the Twins to win. In the playoffs. And the best way to win in the playoffs is to bash. If you can provide me another stat that has a higher winning % than out homering your opponent I'll jump on that bandwagon instead. But the numbers have been this way for years and years. Hitting HRs wins in the playoffs. And I want the Twins to win in the playoffs. Hitting HRs is actually one of the "stickier" stats from the regular season to the postseason as well. As in there's not a large drop off in the number of HRs hit per game in the regular season and the postseason. It's the best strategy I've seen yet. Even if all the Ks are horribly frustrating to watch.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

On 12/19/2023 at 9:54 AM, Nick Nelson said:

I'd love to hear from readers and other fans about what stands out to them as they think back to the final game (and inning) of the Twins season. How can the front office best make sure it comes later next year?

I really appreciate how you broke down those final plate appearances, pitch by pitch. That is often how pitchers and catchers see it—when to waste a pitch, when to try to steal a strike, what to throw on the first pitch, what to follow after a fastball or curve, etc.

Now the trigger warning. Even aside from the strikeout debate, there is too much magical thinking going on. The best example is Buxton. The whole Buxton saga was a disaster, all the way back from the start of spring training not playing in any games, to that final at bat in the 8th when he hit a fly ball to the first baseman at a 51mph exit velocity off a 98mph fastball. And everything in between. Remember everyone lauded and took credit for the plan to have Buxton DH when wit was working through April and early May. In September they gave Toby Gardenhire the go-ahead to play Buxton for 7 full innings in the field in his first rehab appearance, when so many of us were expecting them to ease in Buxton an inning at a time.

I didn’t even realize Buxton’s plate appearance in Game 4 was the last one a Twin put a ball in play. None of us on the outside knew it at the time, but Buxton was completely unprepared to take that at bat in the 8th when they only had six outs left give. I’d love to know if there have been private conversations about this in the front office or owner’s suite, or owner’s supper table. 

That said, there were a lot of highlights and fun moments to go along with the long stretches of badness. Beating Toronto. There was an exciting Julien pinch hit homer at a game I was at. Royce Lewis. The pitching staff. The bullpen was fine but the rotation was great, and healthy, and that will be the key again in 2024.