For Good or Bad, On Field and Off, Twins Franchise Looks Ready to Lean Back Into the 'Twins Way'

[ashbury]

4 hours ago, old nurse said:

It can’t be done in a simple sentence and you did not follow multiple sentences 

A simple "it was a poor analogy that wasn't even central to my point, I withdraw it, let's move on," would have sufficed. 😀

[Mike Sixel]

39 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

You got 2 of the 5 games, or 40%, wrong. Pretty significant!  I find it interesting that you shared your statistic without actually looking it up.  Seems like you're operating on assumptions because you want them to be true, rather than whether they are actually true. 

Please share these studies.  I tried and cannot find a single study that shows that the one and only metric for determining playoff success is the quantity of home runs and that things like pitching, home field advantage, defense, timely hitting, etc have no impact in winning playoff games.  The fact that more homers makes you more likely to win is true in every baseball game ever and is not special to the playoffs. And again, I've shown the data that the best regular season HR hitting teams do not win in the playoffs.   Building a team solely focused on power does not translate to success, as Falvey era Twins fans know full well.

Each playoff year is a small sample size so meaningful trend data cannot be gleaned from it - this is the "playoffs are a crapshoot" theory.  Again it's interesting when saber guys just totally ignore SSS when it suits their argument.  Hitting home runs helps you win; building teams that can hit HRs and do nothing else well does not.  

I mean, you were pointed in that direction by another poster and just dismissed it, so I'm not sure you actually care, but here

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/yes-the-playoffs-are-still-a-crapshoot/

[Woof Bronzer]

3 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

I mean, you were pointed in that direction by another poster and just dismissed it, so I'm not sure you actually care, but here

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/yes-the-playoffs-are-still-a-crapshoot/

That piece supports my argument, thank you! You cannot say "the playoffs are a crapshoot" and "the only way to win in the playoffs is to outslug your opponent" at the same time - those 2 things are in direct conflict with each other.  You can have one or the other, not both. 

The point which I'm obviously struggling to communicate clearly is that, if the playoffs are a crapshoot and you are a middle market team your best bet is to field a well rounded team, focusing more on "cheap" skills like defense, bullpen, and fundamentals, while strategically investing in a couple of the more expensive power bats, and hope that your team gets hot at the right time.  

[TheLeviathan]

9 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

I mean, you were pointed in that direction by another poster and just dismissed it, so I'm not sure you actually care, but here

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/yes-the-playoffs-are-still-a-crapshoot/

I'm going to keep that link on hand everytime I have to remind people that the playoffs are just a random small sample we've put a **** ton of importance on.

But it is still just a random small sample.  Prone to all the crapshooty randomness of any other small sample.

[TheLeviathan]

4 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

That piece supports my argument, thank you! You cannot say "the playoffs are a crapshoot" and "the only way to win in the playoffs is to outslug your opponent" at the same time - those 2 things are in direct conflict with each other.  You can have one or the other, not both. 

The point which I'm obviously struggling to communicate clearly is that, if the playoffs are a crapshoot and you are a middle market team your best bet is to field a well rounded team, focusing more on "cheap" skills like defense, bullpen, and fundamentals, while strategically investing in a couple of the more expensive power bats, and hope that your team gets hot at the right time.  

I think you're missing the point.  Yes....the playoffs are a crapshoot.  Yes....you can lose with any build you want to go with.  You seem to acknowledge the issue here at the end of your post, but you've also been disagreeing with it for four pages for some reason:

Building a team with no power is going to take away a major element of winning games in any sample.  In the playoffs you don't go up against a bunch of 8th guys out of the pen or 5th starters.  So a team that relies on scraping by with 4 hits to get one run is going to give themselves a harder road to win.  (Because the quality of your opponent's pitching is going to reduce those chances in a small window)

It can still be done, but what is being argued that you are disagreeing with is that a team full of a bunch of slap hitters with no investment in power is taking away a major weapon in the playoffs. That's all.  The ability to field a lineup that can hit bombs is a vital element to winning.

[TwinsDr2021]

On 10/18/2025 at 5:31 AM, old nurse said:

You can question a comment. Now try knowing understanding developing people’s talent. It is neither linear nor does it have to be age related.. a lot of good players develop  late 

My question mark was I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say.

"So you are saying you son’s know what a major league starter hits,  "

The best I could come up with was my son knows what a major league starter hits? What does this have to do with my son, or what a major league starter hits? 

And you are 100% correct player development isn't linear or about age. Because usually good/great players are pretty much like that from the start (group 1), others take a little time (group 2), and others take longer (group 3), but what we know or should know is that that the best, most consistent, longest tenure players come from groups 1 and 2. And yes you can rattle off the Brian Dozier's of the world, who was not good until age 26 (majors at age 25) and was basically done at age 30, but for every Dozier there are hundreds if not thousands of Keirsey, Gasper and Mike Ford's of the world. And ignoring that reality is well

 

[old nurse]

19 hours ago, ashbury said:

A simple "it was a poor analogy that wasn't even central to my point, I withdraw it, let's move on," would have sufficed. 😀

The question was asked why the Twins pivoted from spending money. It was an obtuse analogy, not a poor one.  They had 2 star players in Correa and Buxton, traded for or signed 3 players. They gambled and they hoped by winning that the team would be back to sellouts, a full house.  Drawing a hight three of a kind in draw is long odds. You fail, you pivot from the high stakes, and go back to penny ante. 

[Woof Bronzer]

12 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

It can still be done, but what is being argued that you are disagreeing with is that a team full of a bunch of slap hitters with no investment in power is taking away a major weapon in the playoffs. That's all.  The ability to field a lineup that can hit bombs is a vital element to winning.

Yeah we're on the same page.  I'm saying don't build a lineup with no investment in power; but also don't build a lineup by only investing in power.  And that mid market teams in the era of extreme payroll inequality can't afford to build a successful power-only team anyway (and even if they could, the Yankees and Dodgers and others will almost always do it better).   I think even Falvey has realized this by now.   Better in my opinion to identify some "cheap" competitive advantages, get to the playoffs, and hope your team gets hot in the crapshoot that is October.  I used to loathe the 2000s Twins for doing this but with expanded playoffs, extreme payroll disparities, and self-imposed payroll constraints, it's not an unreasonable approach.

[nicksaviking]

23 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

I mean, you were pointed in that direction by another poster and just dismissed it, so I'm not sure you actually care, but here

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/yes-the-playoffs-are-still-a-crapshoot/

Sure, whether it's elite power, elite on base skills, elite pitching or a combination of any elite skills, there is more than one way to win a World Series. 

But it's a crapshoot only for the elite teams. Only twice in the last 30 years has a team outside the top ten in spending won the World Series.

So as long as you're willing to pay elite players, regardless of their specific skill set, you get to play this particular game of chance.

[Mike Sixel]

15 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Sure, whether it's elite power, elite on base skills, elite pitching or a combination of any elite skills, there is more than one way to win a World Series. 

 

But it's a crapshoot only for the elite teams. Only twice in the last 30 years has a team outside the top ten in spending won the World Series.

So as long as you're willing to pay elite players, regardless of their specific skill set, you get a chance to play this particular game of chance.

Ya, that's the depressing part if you care about the WS more than the journey..... Because you aren't winning the WS unless you are a big spender most likely. 

[SteveLV]

Let's put it this way: There is only one Twin would be a starter on the Dodgers, and that is Buxton.

They are so overwhelmingly talented that even with SSS in the Playoffs they are HEAVY favorites to win the WS.  The Twins are utterly non-competitive no matter what "methodology" for roster construction you want to come up with.

MLB needs a MASSIVE overhaul in the new CBA or the sport is doomed for the smaller market fans.