How the Twins Are Mimicking the Brewers' Successful Strategy

[jorgenswest]

I also have a wonder about the Brewer trades, have the they traded key players with multiple years of service time? Burnes had one year left. Williams had one year left. I think Hader one plus the partial season. They traded him with a 4.24 ERA in the season they didn’t make the playoffs.

I would like the Twins to follow this model also. They traded Duran, Jax and Varland with too much service time and little if any extra value for that time. If they trade Ryan this winter it will be with more service time than the trades of Burnes, Williams and Hader. Trading Ryan now isn’t the Brewers model.

 

[chpettit19]

28 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

The converse can be true; several role-players get hot at the time same in a short series and suddenly the team with the $200M+ payroll is at home wondering what the hell happened. It's why if you have a chance to make the playoffs you should always go for it because things can get weird in a short series.

But the elite players are more likely to be able to hold up when the benches, rotations, and bullpens tighten up. It certainly seemed to hurt the Brewers ability to put runs up on the board against the Dodgers, when Durbin was the only guy that was hitting. And if you're relying on getting baserunners and aggression to get you extra runs, that definitely seems to get harder in the playoffs.

Oh, for sure, big payroll teams get bounced in the first round all the time, but relying on several role players to stay hot for the entire month of October is a lot to ask. And it's why the lower payroll teams almost never win titles. Eventually they run into a high payroll team who's stars are doing star things and the talent gap is just too much.

Homeruns win in the playoffs. It's an undeniable fact. The team that hits the most homers in a playoff game wins over 90% of the time. Because playoff pitching is incredibly good. And it's incredibly hard to string together a lot of hits and/or walks in an inning against incredibly good pitching on a regular basis in order to score multiple runs which is almost always needed to win games. Leashes are short in the playoffs so you almost never get the chance to put up multiple innings of having a large number of base runners against the same struggling pitcher because managers go to their pen so early now. So you have to maximize your scoring innings. And, as you said, it's really hard to get extra runs out of baserunners and aggression. Snell, Yamamoto, Glasnow, and Ohtani aren't going a whole lot of innings with 3, 4, 5, or 6 base runners against them. So you're trying to get to 4 or 5 runs in a game 1 run at a time. It's really, really hard to win MLB playoff games that way. It's why teams pay for power.

[jmlease1]

37 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

While true that the were not acquired by waiver claim it is mostly a function of their record. If a player is worthy of claiming, teams with good records like the Brewers won’t win the claim. Instead a trade is needed

They built their bullpen largely on players DFA’d by other teams. The give up cash or minor leaguers with little to no prospect status to avoid the risk the claim won’t get to them. The Twins DFA’d Trevor Megill. The Brewers sent them cash and Taylor Floyd. Floyd was a 25 year old reliever in high A with the Brewers. He has since been released by the Twins. They acquired Grant Anderson in trade after he had been DFA’d by the Rangers. Nick Mears had been DFA’d twice before the the Brewers made a trade with the Rockies. He had a 5.56 ERA with the Rockies. One of the players they traded was released by the Rockies. The other was a major leaguer and had a 9.36 ERA in 12 starts for the Rockies this year. Koenig was released by the Padres and picked up a a minor league free agent. The other two relievers in the bullpen were developed by the Brewers. Uribe was an international signing and Ashby a fourth round draft pick.

The Brewers spent virtually no capital to build a bullpen. The 4th round pick might have been the most valuable asset they used. That is the Brewers model the Twins must follow. It will take an elite ability to identify and develop pitching talent that is unwanted and unrecognized by other teams. 

This has certainly been the Twins model for building a bullpen as well. They haven't been spending significant resources on bullpen guys, they primarily have been building via waivers, minimum salary signings, and internal development (especially converting starting pitching prospects into relievers). And it's worked quite well for the Twins, overall. They haven't been spending big piles of cash on relievers and don't even look to extend their own guys to multi-year deals as a rule. Are the Twins following MKE's example, or did MKE follow the Twins? (better answer: both of them followed the Rays)

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

FYI, Frelick was a first rounder. And he has over 6 career WAR. No idea why he wasn't included with Turang. Some arbitrary notion of "long-term value" despite both of them being in their 3rd year. Frelick was actually the higher pick (15th vs 21st), but Turang has been the better major leaguer. But Frelick has been a good player.

People are so excited about this and want the Twins to follow this strategy but they are also losing their minds at the idea of trading Ryan. They're pissed they traded Duran and Jax. That's exactly what this strategy is. Trade Burnes. Trade Williams. Would've traded Woodruff if he wasn't hurt. Trade Josh Hader. Now they're talking about trading Peralta. Bring back players like Cortez and Durbin for Williams. These same fans would be ripping Falvey apart for that return for Duran. They'd be livid. People hate Roden (full disclosure, I'm not a huge fan), but he's who this is about. Were fans around here super jealous the Twins didn't get Caleb Durbin? Everyone around here clamoring for Andrew Vaughn as the difference maker we needed? All people are actually excited about is the idea of being good. And the Brewers have been really good during the regular season recently.

As @nicksaviking pointed out, the Twins had this run. The Rays had their run. The Brewers get bounced very quickly from the playoffs almost every time they make it. This year's series win jumped their total playoff series wins during the 21st century to 3 (1 in 2011, 1 in 2018, and 1 this year). They've won 4 in their entire team existence. 

People are excited because they're fun to watch, but their strategy doesn't actually win playoff games. I'd much rather be winning right now than losing, but the Brewers aren't some multi-decade powerhouse threatening for rings every year. Because, like the Twins, Rays, Guardians, or whoever else people are going to point to next, they don't have stars. They develop them and then they trade them to the teams that can afford them. You need stars. A whole collection of them. And you need to be developing them. And then you need to give yourself the best chance to develop more, which includes trading some of the ones you've already developed.

The Twins don't need to be the Brewers. They don't need to be the Guardians. Or the Rays. They can afford to keep Ryan and Buxton or sign Correa or trade for Lopez and extend him. They have a financial advantage over these teams. But they need to mix those strategies in. And fans need to step back and actually think about what they're praising about the Brewers right now. They built their team by trading their 2 superstar relievers (Hader and Williams) and their stud starter (Burnes). They signed a massive contract for 1 player (Yelich). It's everything these same people are complaining about the Twins doing and claiming the problem is. They're bringing in the same level of players the Twins are (Durbin vs Roden). They used openers, bullpen games, and short starts the entire postseason. They traded for Yelich, McCutchen, Taylor Rogers, Carlos Santana, Mark Canha, and Nestor Cortes. They signed Rhys Hoskins in free agency.

They're doing the same thing the Twins are doing. But they're backing it up with Frelick, Turang, Chourio, and Misiorowski instead of Lee, Julien, Miranda, and Festa. The Brewers aren't doing anything differently than any other team when it comes to acquiring players. They're drafting players. They're trading vets for prospects. They're trading prospects for vets. They're trading vets for both prospects and vets. They're signing international free agents. And they're signing free agents. They're just getting more out of their players. In the regular season. And then they're doing like every other mid- or small-market team and getting bounced from the playoffs quickly and with little trouble.

Not just the Roden hatefest, but people here are already ****ing on the likes of Bradley and Abel. Now insisting the Twins need a top 10 overall prospect in order to move Joe Ryan, which is not happening. 

It's not unique to this site of course, Fans are just not realistic, at all.

[Taildragger8791]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Oh, for sure, big payroll teams get bounced in the first round all the time, but relying on several role players to stay hot for the entire month of October is a lot to ask. And it's why the lower payroll teams almost never win titles. Eventually they run into a high payroll team who's stars are doing star things and the talent gap is just too much.

Homeruns win in the playoffs. It's an undeniable fact. The team that hits the most homers in a playoff game wins over 90% of the time. Because playoff pitching is incredibly good. And it's incredibly hard to string together a lot of hits and/or walks in an inning against incredibly good pitching on a regular basis in order to score multiple runs which is almost always needed to win games. Leashes are short in the playoffs so you almost never get the chance to put up multiple innings of having a large number of base runners against the same struggling pitcher because managers go to their pen so early now. So you have to maximize your scoring innings. And, as you said, it's really hard to get extra runs out of baserunners and aggression. Snell, Yamamoto, Glasnow, and Ohtani aren't going a whole lot of innings with 3, 4, 5, or 6 base runners against them. So you're trying to get to 4 or 5 runs in a game 1 run at a time. It's really, really hard to win MLB playoff games that way. It's why teams pay for power.

The difference is those teams winning with power still have guys that take consistently quality at-bats and hit for average or draw walks. Not a bunch of low average, low contact, station-to-station hitters barely surpassing 25 HRs and giving up 7-8 easy outs every trip through the lineup.

[Old Twins Hat]

5 hours ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

IMO the Brewers having the best regular season record, and getting trounced by the Dodgers in the playoffs, will be the driving force behind negotiating a salary cap and floor in the upcoming negotiations between management and the players association.

That's the point.  ML Baseball has a problem, a huge problem and everybody knows it.

It's good, well and fine to be in favor of imitating the Brew Crew, but they are home watching the Dodgers in the World Series and it's another year of Betts, Freeman, Ohtani, Snell, Glasnow, etc. celebrating their awesome season.  

Yawn.  Buzz kill.  Cue the fan indifference.

it's not going to be particularly close and baseball is being ruined because of it.

[NYCTK]

55 minutes ago, Old Twins Hat said:

Yawn.  Buzz kill.  Cue the fan indifference.

You say this except the TV viewership this season, and postseason, have been up significantly. 

And as much as we all hate it, super teams are a draw in the World Series. Everyone wants to see them lose. Just like the late 90s Yanks. 

[Riverbrian]

21 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

FYI, Frelick was a first rounder. And he has over 6 career WAR. No idea why he wasn't included with Turang. Some arbitrary notion of "long-term value" despite both of them being in their 3rd year. Frelick was actually the higher pick (15th vs 21st), but Turang has been the better major leaguer. But Frelick has been a good player.

People are so excited about this and want the Twins to follow this strategy but they are also losing their minds at the idea of trading Ryan. They're pissed they traded Duran and Jax. That's exactly what this strategy is. Trade Burnes. Trade Williams. Would've traded Woodruff if he wasn't hurt. Trade Josh Hader. Now they're talking about trading Peralta. Bring back players like Cortez and Durbin for Williams. These same fans would be ripping Falvey apart for that return for Duran. They'd be livid. People hate Roden (full disclosure, I'm not a huge fan), but he's who this is about. Were fans around here super jealous the Twins didn't get Caleb Durbin? Everyone around here clamoring for Andrew Vaughn as the difference maker we needed? All people are actually excited about is the idea of being good. And the Brewers have been really good during the regular season recently.

As @nicksaviking pointed out, the Twins had this run. The Rays had their run. The Brewers get bounced very quickly from the playoffs almost every time they make it. This year's series win jumped their total playoff series wins during the 21st century to 3 (1 in 2011, 1 in 2018, and 1 this year). They've won 4 in their entire team existence. 

People are excited because they're fun to watch, but their strategy doesn't actually win playoff games. I'd much rather be winning right now than losing, but the Brewers aren't some multi-decade powerhouse threatening for rings every year. Because, like the Twins, Rays, Guardians, or whoever else people are going to point to next, they don't have stars. They develop them and then they trade them to the teams that can afford them. You need stars. A whole collection of them. And you need to be developing them. And then you need to give yourself the best chance to develop more, which includes trading some of the ones you've already developed.

The Twins don't need to be the Brewers. They don't need to be the Guardians. Or the Rays. They can afford to keep Ryan and Buxton or sign Correa or trade for Lopez and extend him. They have a financial advantage over these teams. But they need to mix those strategies in. And fans need to step back and actually think about what they're praising about the Brewers right now. They built their team by trading their 2 superstar relievers (Hader and Williams) and their stud starter (Burnes). They signed a massive contract for 1 player (Yelich). It's everything these same people are complaining about the Twins doing and claiming the problem is. They're bringing in the same level of players the Twins are (Durbin vs Roden). They used openers, bullpen games, and short starts the entire postseason. They traded for Yelich, McCutchen, Taylor Rogers, Carlos Santana, Mark Canha, and Nestor Cortes. They signed Rhys Hoskins in free agency.

They're doing the same thing the Twins are doing. But they're backing it up with Frelick, Turang, Chourio, and Misiorowski instead of Lee, Julien, Miranda, and Festa. The Brewers aren't doing anything differently than any other team when it comes to acquiring players. They're drafting players. They're trading vets for prospects. They're trading prospects for vets. They're trading vets for both prospects and vets. They're signing international free agents. And they're signing free agents. They're just getting more out of their players. In the regular season. And then they're doing like every other mid- or small-market team and getting bounced from the playoffs quickly and with little trouble.

Take out the last sentence and I agree completely. 

Milwaukee was not bounced with little trouble... they reached the NLCS. The Dodgers are 9-1.

A team rolling 9 out of 10 wins in the playoffs doesn't happen often.  2022 Astros? 2005 White Sox?

If you had to choose a team to roll through like that. The Third Seeded Dodgers would be a popular choice but you still have to roll through like that and most don't. 

Detroit was trouble this year. Limped in but they were trouble once in. 

Cleveland reached the ALCS last year. 

Arizona swept the Dodgers in 2023. They were trouble throughout the playoffs. The Rangers spent some money on Seagar and Semien. They wouldn't fit any small market team narrative with the 7th highest payroll but they survived the regular season and qualified for the playoffs on the final weekend by going 2-4 over their last 6. The playoffs began and those struggles were gone. They rode the arms of Eovaldi, Montgomery, LeClerc and Sborz on the mound while Adolis Garcia had the best stretch of baseball in his 30 year old at the time life. Evan Carter showed up for an incredible stretch of baseball that he hasn't seen since. The Rangers haven't seen the playoffs since. 

The Dodgers are pretty incredible. I've never seen 5 pitchers this dominant over 74 innings in a ten game stretch in the playoffs. Just 18 innings thrown by everybody else. Just Snell, Yamamoto, Glasnow, Ohtani and Sasaki and it's about all they need. 

Yet the Dodgers haven't hit like the Blue Jays have hit. Vlad and Springer are earning their money at the moment. Clement and Barger are underpaid. 

The Blue Jays may have taken 7 games to get to the final... Doesn't mean the Blue Jays can't win this thing. 

 

 

[Woof Bronzer]

22 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Homeruns win in the playoffs. It's an undeniable fact. The team that hits the most homers in a playoff game wins over 90% of the time. 

I keep hearing things like this, yet I cannot find a study to support it.  (Maybe it exists and I am just not finding it.) I am not doubting that hitting more homers gives you a better chance to win, but I am skeptical that this is the #1 correlation with winning in the playoffs, because there are hundreds of other factors that go into winning, and you'd need to evaluate many different correlations to determine if power is really the deciding factor.  Also, playoffs are small sample sizes so I'm skeptical they can be relied on for any meaningful trend data.

What I did find was a regular season study from 2015-2023 finding the stats that best correlate to winning percentage.  The data is fascinating - see below.  (Couldn't find the raw data so I have to assume it's accurate.)  And obviously this is season long data vs. individual games.  But I think it's very interesting.

One thing that is clear from the data is pitching has much stronger correlation to winning than batting in general.  So I'd say pitching is more important than HRs and would lead me to believe if we are focused on playoff success we should be focused on pitching over HRs.  (For what it's worth, HR differential does give you a better chance to win but it's 28th on the list. ) 

I know most people will just dismiss this data as it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.  One thing that stuck out to me is that batting Ks don't correlate great but pitcher Ks do.  I've said for years that it makes no sense for Ks to be good for pitchers and irrelevant for hitters...but the data would suggest that's absolutely the case.  I was wrong.  The data set is kinda blowing my mind to be honest...causing me to rethink a lot of what I thought I knew about the game.  Anyway, thought I'd share.

[Riverbrian]

47 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

I keep hearing things like this, yet I cannot find a study to support it.  (Maybe it exists and I am just not finding it.) I am not doubting that hitting more homers gives you a better chance to win, but I am skeptical that this is the #1 correlation with winning in the playoffs, because there are hundreds of other factors that go into winning, and you'd need to evaluate many different correlations to determine if power is really the deciding factor.  Also, playoffs are small sample sizes so I'm skeptical they can be relied on for any meaningful trend data.

What I did find was a regular season study from 2015-2023 finding the stats that best correlate to winning percentage.  The data is fascinating - see below.  (Couldn't find the raw data so I have to assume it's accurate.)  And obviously this is season long data vs. individual games.  But I think it's very interesting.

One thing that is clear from the data is pitching has much stronger correlation to winning than batting in general.  So I'd say pitching is more important than HRs and would lead me to believe if we are focused on playoff success we should be focused on pitching over HRs.  (For what it's worth, HR differential does give you a better chance to win but it's 28th on the list. ) 

I know most people will just dismiss this data as it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.  One thing that stuck out to me is that batting Ks don't correlate great but pitcher Ks do.  I've said for years that it makes no sense for Ks to be good for pitchers and irrelevant for hitters...but the data would suggest that's absolutely the case.  I was wrong.  The data set is kinda blowing my mind to be honest...causing me to rethink a lot of what I thought I knew about the game.  Anyway, thought I'd share.

I agree. Baseball is so many factors and the timing of those factors. George Springer came up with a big home run last night and you could say that it was proof of what a home run could do. But, it also proof of what a bad pitch at the wrong time can do.  

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Take out the last sentence and I agree completely. 

Milwaukee was not bounced with little trouble... they reached the NLCS. The Dodgers are 9-1.

A team rolling 9 out of 10 wins in the playoffs doesn't happen often.  2022 Astros? 2005 White Sox?

If you had to choose a team to roll through like that. The Third Seeded Dodgers would be a popular choice but you still have to roll through like that and most don't. 

Detroit was trouble this year. Limped in but they were trouble once in. 

Cleveland reached the ALCS last year. 

Arizona swept the Dodgers in 2023. They were trouble throughout the playoffs. The Rangers spent some money on Seagar and Semien. They wouldn't fit any small market team narrative with the 7th highest payroll but they survived the regular season and qualified for the playoffs on the final weekend by going 2-4 over their last 6. The playoffs began and those struggles were gone. They rode the arms of Eovaldi, Montgomery, LeClerc and Sborz on the mound while Adolis Garcia had the best stretch of baseball in his 30 year old at the time life. Evan Carter showed up for an incredible stretch of baseball that he hasn't seen since. The Rangers haven't seen the playoffs since. 

The Dodgers are pretty incredible. I've never seen 5 pitchers this dominant over 74 innings in a ten game stretch in the playoffs. Just 18 innings thrown by everybody else. Just Snell, Yamamoto, Glasnow, Ohtani and Sasaki and it's about all they need. 

Yet the Dodgers haven't hit like the Blue Jays have hit. Vlad and Springer are earning their money at the moment. Clement and Barger are underpaid. 

The Blue Jays may have taken 7 games to get to the final... Doesn't mean the Blue Jays can't win this thing. 

 

 

That was a statement about their general performance in the postseason. They've won 3 playoff series in the 2000s. The Twins have won 1 and we are all incredibly upset about it. Would we really be happier if that number were 3? The statement was about them having a lot of regular season success and getting nowhere in the playoffs the vast majority of the time. And it's an undeniable fact.

[Woof Bronzer]

34 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I agree. Baseball is so many factors and the timing of those factors. 

And thank goodness for that!  If baseball could be reduced to one or 2 factors it would be a very boring game.

35 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

George Springer came up with a big home run last night and you could say that it was proof of what a home run could do. But, it also proof of what a bad pitch at the wrong time can do.  

And also, the walk and single before the home run had a lot to do with the win as well!  If Springer hits a solo shot the Jays are likely golfing today.  

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Woof Bronzer said:

I keep hearing things like this, yet I cannot find a study to support it.  (Maybe it exists and I am just not finding it.) I am not doubting that hitting more homers gives you a better chance to win, but I am skeptical that this is the #1 correlation with winning in the playoffs, because there are hundreds of other factors that go into winning, and you'd need to evaluate many different correlations to determine if power is really the deciding factor.  Also, playoffs are small sample sizes so I'm skeptical they can be relied on for any meaningful trend data.

What I did find was a regular season study from 2015-2023 finding the stats that best correlate to winning percentage.  The data is fascinating - see below.  (Couldn't find the raw data so I have to assume it's accurate.)  And obviously this is season long data vs. individual games.  But I think it's very interesting.

One thing that is clear from the data is pitching has much stronger correlation to winning than batting in general.  So I'd say pitching is more important than HRs and would lead me to believe if we are focused on playoff success we should be focused on pitching over HRs.  (For what it's worth, HR differential does give you a better chance to win but it's 28th on the list. ) 

I know most people will just dismiss this data as it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.  One thing that stuck out to me is that batting Ks don't correlate great but pitcher Ks do.  I've said for years that it makes no sense for Ks to be good for pitchers and irrelevant for hitters...but the data would suggest that's absolutely the case.  I was wrong.  The data set is kinda blowing my mind to be honest...causing me to rethink a lot of what I thought I knew about the game.  Anyway, thought I'd share.

The playoffs and the regular season are different things. I don't dismiss that data at all, it just isn't about the topic I was speaking on. You can watch just about any postseason game and they'll flash the homerun stat up there 2 or 3 times. They've been talking about it for years.

Of course there's more to winning playoff games than hitting homeruns. You need a complete team to win in the postseason. Not just pitching. Not just batting average. Not just homeruns. But homeruns win. It's a statement about people wanting the Twins to be the scrappy little Brewers who hit for average, steal bases, and manufacture runs the "old school" way. It doesn't work in the postseason. Because postseason pitching doesn't tend to go many games in a series giving up a ton of hits. 

Stars win. I have posts on other threads about how 2025 Wallner isn't the kind of power hitter you need, 2023 and 2024 Wallner are when he was hitting .250-.260. You need stars to win in the postseason because they bring the power, but it's not power alone.

To win a World Series you need good pitching, hitting, and defense. Just like to win a Super Bowl you need good offense, defense, and special teams. To win an NBA title you need both offense and defense. I by no means meant all you need to do is have homerun hitters and nothing else matters. It'd be awfully hard to talk in these forums if we all had to cover every possible variable in baseball in every comment we make. Homeruns win in the postseason. Teams with no power who rely on 3, 4, 5, or 6 hits or walks in an inning to score the vast majority of their runs don't win because it's really, really hard to get 3 to 6 hits in an inning against playoff pitching. It happens in some games, for sure. No doubt. No arguing that. But those teams don't win series because playoff pitching is too good to do that to them 3 or 4 times in a series.

[Woof Bronzer]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The playoffs and the regular season are different things.

The 50-game playoff season is too small of a sample size to glean anything meaningful from.  It's a crapshoot.  I find it very interesting that 50 games is a SSS when it comes to evaluating players but somehow it's a perfectly valid sample size when evaluating the playoffs.  

You keep saying HRs win in the postseason but you don't seem to have any statistically relevant data to support it.  For example, on the data set I posted out hitting the other team has a greater correlation than out homering the other team.  Looking at this years playoffs, the team who gets more hits than the other team won 36 of 38 times, which is a much higher correlation than HR differential.  Interesting, no?  I'll wait for you to dismiss this somehow...but if you want an "undeniable fact" it's that outhitting the opponent has had much more impact in winning 2025 games than outhomering the other team.  Sorry if that is upsetting. 

Home runs help you win games.  Many, many other things do too.  

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

That was a statement about their general performance in the postseason. They've won 3 playoff series in the 2000s. The Twins have won 1 and we are all incredibly upset about it. Would we really be happier if that number were 3? The statement was about them having a lot of regular season success and getting nowhere in the playoffs the vast majority of the time. And it's an undeniable fact.

I agree with your post... Just that last sentence.

I agree... You can't deny the results. History records such things. The Twins have the worst playoff baseball record out of 30 teams since 2000. The Brewers are 25th worst since 2000. The Royals actually have the best playoff winning percentage since 2000. They just don't get there very often. 

The reason for those results? That's a little harder to pin down. It's really hard when you consider that not a single player on 2003 Twins roster was on the 2020 Twins Roster. We just know that it's part of a long streak involving many many different players and coaches and front offices over many years. 

I agree that superstars win but superstars also have to play like superstars when the need is greatest and they don't always do that. I've seen enough Eddie Rosario, Howie Kendrick, Daniel Murphy, Marco Scutero, David Freese, Adam Kennedy Playoff MVP awards to believe that it's quite possible that Caleb Durbin could be the superstar for the moment and Yelich might struggle.  

I agree that Money is a huge factor without a doubt. Those with money to spend tend to be the teams holding that trophy.

But... I can't help but wonder... is the money helping them reach the playoffs. Getting them through that 162 game grind. 

Therefore creating more teams with money in the playoffs.

Therefore increasing the odds of money winning in the end. 

This year 8 teams with money made the playoffs. 4 without Made the Playoffs. The raffle drum is already stacked with money going in. Most years are a similar percentage between the have's and have nots. 

Again... Can't help but wonder. Not saying definitely... Just wondering out loud.  

 

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

The 50-game playoff season is too small of a sample size to glean anything meaningful from.  It's a crapshoot.  I find it very interesting that 50 games is a SSS when it comes to evaluating players but somehow it's a perfectly valid sample size when evaluating the playoffs.  

You keep saying HRs win in the postseason but you don't seem to have any statistically relevant data to support it.  For example, on the data set I posted out hitting the other team has a greater correlation than out homering the other team.  Looking at this years playoffs, the team who gets more hits than the other team won 36 of 38 times, which is a much higher correlation than HR differential.  Interesting, no?  I'll wait for you to dismiss this somehow...but if you want an "undeniable fact" it's that outhitting the opponent has had much more impact in winning 2025 games than outhomering the other team.  Sorry if that is upsetting. 

Home runs help you win games.  Many, many other things do too.  

I haven't dismissed any of your stats, and I'm not dismissing that one, but feel free to continue telling me I'm going to dismiss them. And, as I said in my previous post, I am not at all saying HRs are the only thing you need. You deleted a whole lot of me saying there are other things that matter. But you want some stats, so here's some stats.

As you can see, the number of homeruns hit per game between the regular season and the postseason stay pretty darn close to the same almost every year (2020 being the exception). The number of runs scored per game go down in the postseason every year (2024 being the outlier on the severity of the drop) and the number of hits per game go down every year but 1 (2021) and by .92 or more in half of the years. 

So, teams get fewer hits and score fewer runs because playoff pitching is better than regular season pitching because you're not seeing the bottom of the barrel guys often. But homeruns stay the same. Homeruns account for a larger percentage of the runs scored in the postseason than they do in the regular season. Being able to hit homeruns is a key part of postseason success and it's the reason teams like the Brewers never win the World Series despite the claims that "it's a crapshoot" even though it's always a power packed team with a high payroll that wins.

For the second time now, you need pitching, defense, and offense to win a World Series. You need a complete team. Part of being a complete team is having power. It's why the Brewers rarely even win a playoff series let alone are an actual WS threat despite putting up very, very good regular season win totals the last decade. Because they can't hit HRs at a good enough clip. But, again, you can't just rely on .200 hitters with power because you need a complete team and part of being a complete team is being able to get some hits that aren't HRs.

Keep arguing all you want, but I don't have anymore time today. HRs are a vital part of winning in the postseason and people clamoring for the Twins to be a speed and defense team are asking for them to give up all hope of winning a title.

[Woof Bronzer]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I haven't dismissed any of your stats, and I'm not dismissing that one, but feel free to continue telling me I'm going to dismiss them. And, as I said in my previous post, I am not at all saying HRs are the only thing you need. You deleted a whole lot of me saying there are other things that matter. But you want some stats, so here's some stats.

As you can see, the number of homeruns hit per game between the regular season and the postseason stay pretty darn close to the same almost every year (2020 being the exception). The number of runs scored per game go down in the postseason every year (2024 being the outlier on the severity of the drop) and the number of hits per game go down every year but 1 (2021) and by .92 or more in half of the years. 

So, teams get fewer hits and score fewer runs because playoff pitching is better than regular season pitching because you're not seeing the bottom of the barrel guys often. But homeruns stay the same. Homeruns account for a larger percentage of the runs scored in the postseason than they do in the regular season. Being able to hit homeruns is a key part of postseason success and it's the reason teams like the Brewers never win the World Series despite the claims that "it's a crapshoot" even though it's always a power packed team with a high payroll that wins.

For the second time now, you need pitching, defense, and offense to win a World Series. You need a complete team. Part of being a complete team is having power. It's why the Brewers rarely even win a playoff series let alone are an actual WS threat despite putting up very, very good regular season win totals the last decade. Because they can't hit HRs at a good enough clip. But, again, you can't just rely on .200 hitters with power because you need a complete team and part of being a complete team is being able to get some hits that aren't HRs.

Keep arguing all you want, but I don't have anymore time today. HRs are a vital part of winning in the postseason and people clamoring for the Twins to be a speed and defense team are asking for them to give up all hope of winning a title.

Your data averaged over the years shows there's approximately 1/2 fewer hits per game in the playoffs (or about 8% decrease) and the same HR per game (0% decrease).  Based on this I think you are drastically overstating the difference between playoffs and regular season.  But obviously no fact or data is going to change your opinion. 

Just remember, the next time you hear someone say "teams who outhomer the other team this postseason are 21-4" you can say "sure but teams who outhit the other team this postseason are actually 36-2".  The more you know!

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Your data averaged over the years shows there's approximately 1/2 fewer hits per game in the playoffs (or about 8% decrease) and the same HR per game (0% decrease).  Based on this I think you are drastically overstating the difference between playoffs and regular season.  But obviously no fact or data is going to change your opinion. 

Just remember, the next time you hear someone say "teams who outhomer the other team this postseason are 21-4" you can say "sure but teams who outhit the other team this postseason are actually 36-2".  The more you know!

Change what opinion? That you need a complete team to win in the playoffs and hitting homeruns is a vital part of that? This will now be the third time I've said that you need to be able to get hits that aren't homeruns as well. But if you can't hit homeruns you won't win. 45% of the runs scored in the playoffs this year have come off homeruns (142 out of 317 for 44.7% if you want the exact numbers). You're not winning if you can't hit them. 

You need to be able to hit, pitch, and play defense to win in the playoffs. But hitting for homeruns is vital. IT IS NOT THE ONLY STAT THAT MATTERS. I don't know how many times you want me to say that. My comment, for the third time on this now, is aimed at the people who want the Twins to be a speed and defense team because it's "more entertaining" and think they can win playoff series by bunting and stealing bags and "manufacturing runs" and "playing the game the right way." They can't. Nobody can. The playoffs aren't that big of a "crapshoot." Teams rely more on homeruns in the postseason than they do in the regular season. The percentage of runs scored off homeruns in the regular season typically sits in the 38-40% range. The playoffs are usually in the 44-46% range.

Yes, facts or data will change my opinion, but you haven't provided any that differ from what I'm saying. I've never said they need to rely on solo homeruns. I've said power hitters like 2025 Wallner who hit .200 aren't the guys you need. I've said pitching is also a need (not nice to have, not a secondary thought, an absolute need). I've said defense is a need. So, no, you haven't changed my opinion that being able to hit homeruns is a vital part of winning postseason games. Unless you think a team will survive giving up 45% of the runs while being able to make up for it by getting more hits off the Kirby, Ohtani, Snell, Peralta, Sanchez, Yamamoto, Glasnow, Gausman, Bieber, Woo, Gilbert (do I need to keep going?) starters of the world and pens full of guys with 100 mph gas and astronomical spin rates.

The numbers I provided show an 11% median drop in runs per game from regular season to the postseason. That is taking the Yankees from the #1 ranked offense to the #12 offense. A 9% median decrease in hits takes the Blue Jays from the #1 hits team to #21. The Yankees turn into the As and the Blue Jays turn into the Nationals in terms of runs and hits going from the regular season to the postseason. I think that's important, but you don't have to. They stay the same when it comes to their abilities to hit homeruns (technically it was a 2% rise in homers over those 10 years). 

The Brewers can be expected to go from the 3rd best hitting team to the Minnesota Twins. That's right, them losing 9% of their hits (1423) turns them into the Twins (1295). The Brewers hit 166 homers this year, good for 23rd in baseball and the 2nd lowest of any playoff team. So, the postseason Brewers are now the Twins when it comes to getting hits and are still one of the worst teams in all of baseball when it comes to hitting it over the fence. The Twins were 23rd in runs scored because they struggled to get hits, but they hit 191 HRs this year. The Brewers being the Twins when it comes to getting hits and even worse on the power end sound like a recipe for great postseason offense to you? Or, maybe, do you think that's why the Brewers have won 3 playoff series in the 21st century? You think that could be why they averaged fewer than 3 runs a game this postseason? Baseball is a game of degrees. 8 to 11% decreases are significant. It's the difference between who fans are clamoring for the Twins to be in terms of getting hits and who the Twins actually are with many people calling for a complete teardown of the entire franchise.

[twinstalker]

Such a ridiculous concept.  Thinking the Twins could compete with the Brewers is like thinking the average kindergartener could compete with a top college student in Jeopardy.  You think the little kid can just dress the same way and walk the same way and compete?  No, there's a monstrous difference in intellectual abilities, in understanding the setting and environment of the world they're in.

The Twins don't know what they don't know.  This is why dark days are ahead for as long as it takes a new front office to establish itself over a number of years.  The Twins don't understand what's going on.  At least on the hitting side, and they're about to lose all their established pitchers.  It's ugly..