Make it Official! Twins 6, White Sox 5: Minnesota Resolve Walks it Off

[LA Vikes Fan]

4 hours ago, jmlease1 said:

Lopez having a rough game against the ChiSox was the worst part about this game. We need him to be good and he wobbled pretty badly against a team he could have gotten well against. Hopefully it's more about the weather than anything else, because we're a bit thin in the rotation with Varland having been (deservedly) sent down.

Offense scratched it through late, but the lack of walks in this one is the bad signal for me. 14Ks against 1 BB is not a good formula, but they were able to bunch their 10 hits together enough to get it done. Larnach is certainly seizing his opportunity, which is good to see and Buxton looks like he's heating up as well. And Jeffers certainly has picked up where he left off from last season, which is huge. Hopefully they can hold it together until Correa and Lewis get back.

Sands seems to have found something this season. Still small samples, but he really does seem legitimately better. Okert & Jackson have been underwheming but it's still early. Funderburk got it done, but I'm a little concerned about how hittable he's been. the big K numbers aren't as impactful when you're also giving up a hit every inning; hopefully that's just sample noise.

No style points, but a win is a win and we're not in a position to question how we're getting them right now. It's not like you get extra credit in the standings for making it pretty!

Bet parking was a mess last night with the Wolves playing at the same time across the street.

 

Agree except I think Okert will get it together and Jackson is what we're seeing now. Henriquez goes when Duran is ready to come back next week. Topa probably ready the week after. Who goes than, Bowman, Funderburk or Jackson? Tough choice. Probably will be determined by an injury or the fact that one has options and the others don't. Still, on merit, Jackson is the one to go. 

[Shaitan]

3 hours ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

You're right, SSS.  It seems each year he adjusts, has success, and then they adjust back and he has issues and is sent down.  Hopefully this year is different.

He either fails to adjust, or lacks the concentration required at a pro level and falls into old habits. I hope it's the latter, as that's fixable. Heck, it happened to me. My first job was too easy...until it wasn't, and I'd developed bad habits.

[PDX Twin]

5 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

A win is a win but against any other team, it'd be a loss. 

Bottom line: They finally found a team whose bullpen is worse than the Twins' "hitters."

[KirbyDome89]

8 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Yep you gotta play them all and the ball is still going to do random things at random times and when you play them... is going to be a consideration because hot streaks and cold streaks stop and start on a dime. 3 and 20 doesn't necessarily mean that they won't go 10 and 6 over the next 16.  

I don't expect the White Sox to play at .130 clip all year that would be incredible. The worst record of all time is around a .300 clip. A great team still loses 4 out of 10 and most teams are going to crowd around the middle with a .500 winning percentage. The margins are thin. The White Sox will beat a 100 win team at some point this season. The National just took a series from the Dodgers at Dodger stadium. 

With the margins that thin over a 162 game schedule. It really doesn't make much sense to look at the weak sisters expect an easy pushover.

Gotta strap it on every day and compete. 

 

Sure, small samples, more noise, yada yada. Over an entire season though, this Sox team is easily going to lose 100 games and they may legitimately challenge that 2003 Detroit club for the title of worst team of the modern era. They're that bad. 

When you dig a hole like the Twins did, you need those weak sisters to fall over, hence my aversion to putting any sort of stock into beating up on a borderline AAAA team. Playing in the ALC is a gift. MN has made a living beating up on the weak sisters for the last 2 decades. The 2024 Sox are an added bonus. They're a life preserver for a club that can't tread water. 

[Riverbrian]

59 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Sure, small samples, more noise, yada yada. Over an entire season though, this Sox team is easily going to lose 100 games and they may legitimately challenge that 2003 Detroit club for the title of worst team of the modern era. They're that bad. 

When you dig a hole like the Twins did, you need those weak sisters to fall over, hence my aversion to putting any sort of stock into beating up on a borderline AAAA team. Playing in the ALC is a gift. MN has made a living beating up on the weak sisters for the last 2 decades. The 2024 Sox are an added bonus. They're a life preserver for a club that can't tread water. 

That 2003 tigers... the worst team of the modern era. Still won around 3 out of every 10 games.

The real bad bad teams win 1 and lose 2 every 3 games on average.

Just your normal run of the mill bad team wins 4 out of 10. 

The really good teams win 6 out of 10... They lose 4 out of 10. 

The Oakland A's were a real real bad team last year. They won 50 games. How can you dismiss any team that wins 50 games a year? How can you diminish any victory against a team that wins 1 out of 3.

How can you paint any team as unbeatable that loses 60 games a year.

The Rockies were 41 games behind the Dodgers... That's a lot for sure... but now do the math on 41 games back over a 162 games to get a glimpse of the margins. 

The Twins were 29-23 last year against the weak sisters of the AL Central. They were 20-12 against the AL West. They were 10-16 against the AL East despite a 4-3 winning record against the Yankees. They were 25-21 against the National League. The Twins were 5-2 against the World Series champions and 5-8 against the Tigers. They were 4-2 against the Astros that knocked us out of the playoff which wasn't as good as the Royals who beat the Astros 5 games to 1 last year. 

I don't care who they are playing... they better strap it on. A win is always an accomplishment. 

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

23 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

That 2003 tigers... the worst team of the modern era. Still won around 3 out of every 10 games.

The real bad bad teams win 1 and lose 2 every 3 games on average.

Just your normal run of the mill bad team wins 4 out of 10. 

The really good teams win 6 out of 10... They lose 4 out of 10. 

The Oakland A's were a real real bad team last year. They won 50 games. How can you dismiss any team that wins 50 games a year? How can you diminish any victory against a team that wins 1 out of 3.

How can you paint any team as unbeatable that loses 60 games a year.

The Rockies were 41 games behind the Dodgers... That's a lot for sure... but now do the math on 41 games back over a 162 games to get a glimpse of the margins. 

The Twins were 29-23 last year against the weak sisters of the AL Central. They were 20-12 against the AL West. They were 10-16 against the AL East despite a 4-3 winning record against the Yankees. They were 25-21 against the National League. The Twins were 5-2 against the World Series champions and 5-8 against the Tigers. They were 4-2 against the Astros that knocked us out of the playoff which wasn't as good as the Royals who beat the Astros 5 games to 1 last year. 

I don't care who they are playing... they better strap it on. A win is always an accomplishment. 

 

 

The Sox are averaging less than one win per week. Highly unlikely that pace lasts all year, but that's who they are right now, ****ing terrible not just run of the mill bad, and that matters too. May 1st is one week from today, and they've won 3 games. That's enough to diminish any sort of excitement for me personally. Luckily for the Twins, all wins count the same.

Ok, now double the number of games against Texas, and Houston, and Seattle. Each of those divisions had at minimum three teams fighting for playoff spots. Every team in the ALC folded by the trade deadline. Hell, Cleveland led the division at the All Star break and couldn't be bothered to even stand pat. You mentioned margin for error earlier, no division last year provided a wider margin than the ALC. The Twins would've been all but buried in either the East of West if they played like they did for the first 2/3 of last season. They weren't catching the easiest schedule in baseball to save their asses post deadline. 

We do agree on one thing; the Twins need to show up every game. 

[wabene]

6 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

They're a life preserver for a club that can't tread water.

Very nice phrasing, TD poetry.

[Riverbrian]

9 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

The Sox are averaging less than one win per week. Highly unlikely that pace lasts all year, but that's who they are right now, ****ing terrible not just run of the mill bad, and that matters too. May 1st is one week from today, and they've won 3 games. That's enough to diminish any sort of excitement for me personally. Luckily for the Twins, all wins count the same.

Ok, now double the number of games against Texas, and Houston, and Seattle. Each of those divisions had at minimum three teams fighting for playoff spots. Every team in the ALC folded by the trade deadline. Hell, Cleveland led the division at the All Star break and couldn't be bothered to even stand pat. You mentioned margin for error earlier, no division last year provided a wider margin than the ALC. The Twins would've been all but buried in either the East of West if they played like they did for the first 2/3 of last season. They weren't catching the easiest schedule in baseball to save their asses post deadline. 

We do agree on one thing; the Twins need to show up every game. 

We agree it's highly unlikely that this incredibly bad pace continues. And I agree the White Sox have been ****ing terrible. 

So when do they start winning so they can climb from this .125 winning percentage to the 2003 Tigers worst team in the modern era .265 percentage? 

The 2003 Tigers started the year 3-25. Then they won 6 out of the next 9. Game 28 was the end of a real bad stretch. Game 29 was the start of a good stretch. I can't predict these things so I don't care if they are ****ing terrible right now... just looking at the MLB records indicates a real rough stretch of baseball for the pale hose. 

I'm not sure why you want me to double the games against Houston, Texas and Seattle. If it's because you are pointing out that they play twice as many games against the AL Central. I've already listed that the Twins were 29-23 against the AL Central and 20-12 Against the AL West last year. 52 games against 4 teams compared to 32 games against 5 opponents in the AL West is roughly double. I have acknowledged that by listing the records against divisions. 

Here's the deal I don't have the power to stop anyone from dismissing and diminishing.

I think we all understand that winning 4 out of 10 is classified as a bad baseball team and I think we all understand that winning 6 out of 10 is classified as a good baseball team. 

I simply deny anybody's implication that 6 out of 10 is OMG how are we going to beat the best team in baseball and 4 out of 10 doesn't mean losing to them is a crime beyond the pale. 

This type of implication is rampant. 

 

[KirbyDome89]

7 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

We agree it's highly unlikely that this incredibly bad pace continues. And I agree the White Sox have been ****ing terrible. 

So when do they start winning so they can climb from this .125 winning percentage to the 2003 Tigers worst team in the modern era .265 percentage? 

The 2003 Tigers started the year 3-25. Then they won 6 out of the next 9. Game 28 was the end of a real bad stretch. Game 29 was the start of a good stretch. I can't predict these things so I don't care if they are ****ing terrible right now... just looking at the MLB records indicates a real rough stretch of baseball for the pale hose. 

I'm not sure why you want me to double the games against Houston, Texas and Seattle. If it's because you are pointing out that they play twice as many games against the AL Central. I've already listed that the Twins were 29-23 against the AL Central and 20-12 Against the AL West last year. 52 games against 4 teams compared to 32 games against 5 opponents in the AL West is roughly double. I have acknowledged that by listing the records against divisions. 

Here's the deal I don't have the power to stop anyone from dismissing and diminishing.

I think we all understand that winning 4 out of 10 is classified as a bad baseball team and I think we all understand that winning 6 out of 10 is classified as a good baseball team. 

I simply deny anybody's implication that 6 out of 10 is OMG how are we going to beat the best team in baseball and 4 out of 10 doesn't mean losing to them is a crime beyond the pale. 

This type of implication is rampant. 

 

I think the better question is how, not when. 

I mean call me when they get there, but it obviously isn't happening right now. They'll be lucky to finish April with 5 wins. They're playing at a sub replacement level. The Sox are a major league team in name only, so yeah, I'm going to dismiss any sort of meaning others want to attach to these wins, and no, I don't expect you to convince me otherwise. Like I said, luckily for the Twins every W carries the same weight.  

Neither implication was intended if that's what you took from my response.

[Riverbrian]

7 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I think the better question is how, not when. 

I mean call me when they get there, but it obviously isn't happening right now. They'll be lucky to finish April with 5 wins. They're playing at a sub replacement level. The Sox are a major league team in name only, so yeah, I'm going to dismiss any sort of meaning others want to attach to these wins, and no, I don't expect you to convince me otherwise. Like I said, luckily for the Twins every W carries the same weight.  

Neither implication was intended if that's what you took from my response.

All good. 

I just like W's with due respect. 

[Guest]

On 4/24/2024 at 9:26 AM, bean5302 said:

Honestly? Probably SSS. Larnach got a few big hits against breaking stuff last year early on before it all went sideways again. His biggest weakness is the changeup. I, too, am happy to watch Larnach succeed, but the track record on him is pretty long at this point. Maybe he altered his swing which is helping him. Too early to tell.

Larnach eliminated the leg kick, which has steadied his head in his swing.  The before and after videos show this clearly.  And there was a short article yesterday on the Twins MLB page that discussed this change.  Now, what I'd like to know is whether he talked to Buxton or Jeffers or Popkins, or just figured this out himself.  But, if Larnach can keep this pace up and deal with changes and breaking stuff down and in, he'll become a great asset.