Four Minnesota Twins Players Most Likely to Regress in 2026

[Trov]

I fully agree with Clemons, as he has never been close to what he did for the Twins, and really outside of a couple of crazy hot streaks he was not very good.  Buxton I agree simply because he never has played that much.  

In terms of the pitchers I always hesitate to talk about regression because so much depends on how they may adjust, or any new pitches they develop.  Most pitchers ebb and flow throughout the year even not just year to year.  Some have a couple of poor years then bounce back for a good stretch. 

However, the more I read on Ryan the Twins should look to see what they can get for him.  At the same time, people have doubted him his whole career and he continues to show he is a good pitcher.

[Major League Ready]

On 11/16/2025 at 6:57 AM, Cody Christie said:

 

Minnesota’s path back to contention depends on balancing breakout performances with stability from its veterans. If these players can stave off regression, the Twins could make a serious push in 2026. But if their numbers slide, the front office may be forced to look elsewhere for answers.

 

I think of myself as overly optimistic, but this take is an alternative reality.  Let's evaluate the components of this team starting with it's greatest strength the starting pitching.

The Twins have two very good starters.  There are a number of other teams with a stronger 1-2 punch and others with an equal 1-2.  Their 3rd guy (Ober) looked terrible at the end of the year.  The others are unproven.  Overall good depth but not dominant by any stretch of the imagination.

They have Buxton in the OF so that's probably their next greatest strength if he can stay healthy.  He is flanked by players proven to below average and unproven players.  Below average overall.

They have no 1B.  2B looks good.  3B/SS are well below average.  Overall, well below average. 

Zip in the BP.  Absolutely horrible.  Perhaps the worst in MLB.

How in the world do you conclude this team has a path to contention that does not involve tearing up the current path?

[TwinsDr2021]

28 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

How in the world do you conclude this team has a path tom contention that does not involve tearing up the current path?

💯agree, the path requires about 25% of the current 40 man removed, trading pieces, and spending in FA. and I only see one of those as a real option. 

[bunsen82]

Buxton could have some slight regression - Beyond that 

1. Ryan has improved every year marginally since 2022.  His biggest issue is maintaining his stuff later in the year.   This year he lasted longer than any other year.    I expect marginal improvement again this year.  

2. Clemens -  I wouldn't be surprised if triple slash numbers aren't slightly better than what he showed this year.  Those saying he had 1 good month need to go look at July and Sept.  I could argue he had 3 really bad months - 1 great month - 1 really good month and 1 good month.   If he can avoid his June and August - he doesn't need a great May month.   Give me his consistent September numbers and we will all be pretty happy.  

3.  Simeon Woods Richardson is an extremely smart pitcher.  His fastball improved to an average of 93.3 with a higher slot.  I wouldn't be surprised if he tweaks it slightly more this year.  He knows how to work though even with lower velocity stuff.  I am fairly confident he will be solid again this year.  He is in the mold of Sonny Gray.  I have more confidence in SWR than any other pitcher not named Ryan.  

 

[jorgenswest]

I think xwOBA is helpful in putting a players slash stats into context. It is much more stable than slash stats and more predictive of future slash stats. The components of xwOBA are exit velocity, launch angle and sprint speed. I appreciate xwOBA because it is elements under a player control including accounting for speed.

In 2024 Carlos Correa and Matt Wallner had wOBAs that were 30 and 27 points greater than their xwOBA. Regression might be expected. It can go the other way also. In 2022 Polanco’s xwOBA was 25 points above his wOBA. In 2023 when the wOBA and xwOBA were more in balance is OPS was 30 points higher.

Twins last year that with wOBAs above their xwOBA indicating if the skill is the same they are candidates for the regression. There is only one current Twin with significant plate appearances in this group. Keaschall was a +34 (363 vs 329). His slash stats were much better than his exit velocity, launch angle and speed suggested they should be. Pereda’s sample was small but  the difference was very extreme. His exit velocity, launch angle and speed suggest that he isn’t a very good hitter. His wOBA was 91 points better than his xwOBA. I would absolutely trust that is true ability is much closer to his xwOBA than his wOBA.

There are Twins on the other end of the spectrum that underperformed their contact and speed. If their skill stays the same they are more likely to regress up toward their mean. Eduardo Julien’s xwOBA was 51 points better than his wOBA (337 v 286). In 2023 Julien had nearly the same xwOBA as 2025. His exit velocity, launch angle, barrels, hard hit rate were all pretty close. We probably should expect his 2026 OPS to be close to the middle of those two seasons. Only Buxton and Martin had better xwOBAs than Clemens last year. Clemens’ xwOBA was .342 with the Twins and his wOBA was .302. Most batters with that 40 point gap will have an improved OPS the next year. A .342 wOBA isn’t going to stand out for a 1B and is just below the median of starters. The league wOBA from first basemen was .327. Clemens also played 2B. The league wOBA from second basemen was .299. Last year was Clemens’ first with significant playing time. Did the league figure him out? Maybe. I don’t know if his exit velocity and launch angle changed as the pitchers adjusted but I do see his hard hit rate dropped 6% in the second half. That adjustment concern would be true for any player getting their first significant playing time including Keaschall.

One other thing stood out in my look. Austin Martin’s xwOBA was 14 points better than his wOBA (347 vs 333) giving me reason to hope that what we saw last year was real.

[ashbury]

4 hours ago, old nurse said:

If BABIP at .340 is abnormally high then baseball isn’t supposed to have .300 hitters.  Any good hitter then does not strike out   

• .300 always was an elite thing, except in eras like around 1930 when things got out of whack.
• I took a look at 1973.  BABIP across the majors that year was .281, lower than now.
• Back then batters didn't strike out nearly as much.  13.7% across the majors that year.  22.2% this year.
• Carew's BABIP in 1973 was .375.  Rose's was .355.  But we have that now: Judge's is .376 this year.
• You're forgetting home runs. For better or for worse, they're not in BABIP.

In the years since then, you could argue from these numbers that batters have traded "contact" for "quality of contact."  Aaron Judge has an unfair advantage, possessing Carew's elite contact skills plus elite power.   I'm sure a deeper study would provide other insights than these two, but these come to mind after 5 minutes of playing on b-r.com.

[ashbury]

2 hours ago, stringer bell said:

BABIP in conjunction with hard-hit rate might explain and predict success for players. Hard hit balls in play should work for a higher batting average. Keaschall's .340 BABIP coupled with only a 31% hard-hit rate should predict regression to the mean. 

Woods Richardson coupled a below average BABIP with an above average hard-hit rate, so he too would look like his runs allowed numbers would get worse in 2026.

This stuff is such a rabbit hole for me.  I looked at something else after posting the above, using b-r.com's Stathead tool, and I'll respond to your point in writing it up.  And then I intend to stop for the time being. 😁

From 2021 to 2025, only three batters amassed 1500 PA and maintained an overall .300 BA: Arraez, Freeman, and Judge.  Their cumulative BABIPs: .325, .341, .347.  And the BAs in the same order are .315, .308, .306.  Luis doesn't strike out very much, so he doesn't need as high a BABIP as the others to maintain .300.  Freddie strikes out more than Luis but partially compensates with more homers.  Same goes for Aaron, to an even higher degree.  https://www.sports-reference.com/stathead/tiny/f5gMK 

I'll let you or someone else cross-check these three batters' exit velocities and what not.  I think I can take a pretty good guess with two of those guys, but I'm not sure what you'll find with Arraez.

Because I was looking at 1973, I also used Stathead to find that in the five year period 1971-1975 there were 9 batters with the same minimum PA and a .300 cumulative BA:  in ascending order of BABIP they were Manny Sanguillén, Ted Simmons, Matty Alou, Pete Rose, Bob Watson, Ralph Garr, Richie Zisk, Lou Brock, Rod Carew.  Manny was renowned for not striking out much, as I recall.  Alou in this list likewise avoided K's like the plague.  Carew had the highest BABIP at .368.  Only 9 guys means it was still an elite accomplishment even then.   https://www.sports-reference.com/stathead/tiny/5kl8a 

The main thing I'm trying to get across is that high BABIP can be sustainable and we don't know yet what a rookie's true level of skill in this dimension will prove to be.  A high BABIP correlates with being a well-regarded hitter in one's era.  The hard-hit rate certainly calls into question whether Keaschall will be that guy.

 

[Coach Wheels]

23 hours ago, jjswol said:

You said Buxton will play 150 games but you forgot how many years it will take hime to do that. Are you taking the over or under of "3"?

I'm taking the under. 😂

[RpR]

5 hours ago, old nurse said:

If BABIP at .340 is abnormally high then baseball isn’t supposed to have .300 hitters.  Any good hitter then does not strike out   .040 point difference between BA and BABIP I think was about where sustainability is achieved. Can’t remember the exact why of how that worked. It was Danny Santana’s miracle year. 

Keaschall does have a lot of infield hits as speed helps. He also had a lot of short outfield hits. The defense can’t play up, they can’t play deep

Texas league hits are what the Twins need a LOT more of.

[jdr]

It`s funny how some fans only see what they want to. Why, is SWR always placed into these conversations. Let`s dive into the facts. What starter is taking all pitches from their pitching coach? I`ll wait. What starter that is winning any game they are pitching is pulled in 4 2/3 innings with 50 - 70 pitches? I`ll wait. And, how many times did you see that happen? So, what is the obsession with this guy? The players that are mentioned in this forum are hurt 80 percent of the time Buxton included. Good player doing his thing but, he`s hurt. Festa arm, Kersey, Hamstring, etc. Lewis whatever, Martin Hurt, get my point. You guy`s are incredible with the limited information given. So, you telling me these part time players with their talent excluding Buxton because of the accomplishments are not going to regress? I`ll wait. So, for the numbers people what was his ERA over the last 5 starts he called his pitches or didn`t you notice that something was different? Boy, for the people who played to the game to the people that watch it`s truly amazing. I really like these forums

[old nurse]

4 hours ago, ashbury said:

• .300 always was an elite thing, except in eras like around 1930 when things got out of whack.
• I took a look at 1973.  BABIP across the majors that year was .281, lower than now.
• Back then batters didn't strike out nearly as much.  13.7% across the majors that year.  22.2% this year.
• Carew's BABIP in 1973 was .375.  Rose's was .355.  But we have that now: Judge's is .376 this year.
• You're forgetting home runs. For better or for worse, they're not in BABIP.

In the years since then, you could argue from these numbers that batters have traded "contact" for "quality of contact."  Aaron Judge has an unfair advantage, possessing Carew's elite contact skills plus elite power.   I'm sure a deeper study would provide other insights than these two, but these come to mind after 5 minutes of playing on b-r.com.

League average BA .231, League average BABIP .279. Keaschall’s difference falls in line with  league average.  Above average ball to bat skills allows for more hits. Above average speed allows for more hits.  So if a .340 some BABIP is is luck, Joe Mauer having that for the 14 seasons he played makes him a modern day luckiest player ever. 

[ashbury]

4 hours ago, old nurse said:

League average BA .231, League average BABIP .279. Keaschall’s difference falls in line with  league average.  Above average ball to bat skills allows for more hits. Above average speed allows for more hits.  So if a .340 some BABIP is is luck, Joe Mauer having that for the 14 seasons he played makes him a modern day luckiest player ever. 

I think your humorous sarcasm is meant in agreement with my above posts.

Just to be clear though: when people talk about players regressing to a mean, for any stat really, they should be referring to each player's own mean and not necessarily some league-wide mean.  And for young players like Keaschall, we don't yet know what that BABIP mean is.  Someone like Mauer, or Judge now, have established very high BABIP means indeed.  Max Kepler established a very low mean BABIP; we kept wrongly expecting his to rise.

[old nurse]

28 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I think your humorous sarcasm is meant in agreement with my above posts.

Just to be clear though: when people talk about players regressing to a mean, for any stat really, they should be referring to each player's own mean and not necessarily some league-wide mean.  And for young players like Keaschall, we don't yet know what that BABIP mean is.  Someone like Mauer, or Judge now, have established very high BABIP means indeed.  Max Kepler established a very low mean BABIP; we kept wrongly expecting his to rise.

In the early days of TD there was a kerfuffle over BABIP and pitchers. The pitcher I think was Maddux. That long ago. The comments on regression.  I found a Tom Tango piece that said that for pitchers BABIP normalizes at about 1000 innings.  That would be somewhere around 4000 batters. So for the batter it should normalize in 4000 PA. By then the aging curve has set in 

[ashbury]

28 minutes ago, old nurse said:

In the early days of TD there was a kerfuffle over BABIP and pitchers. The pitcher I think was Maddux. That long ago. The comments on regression.  I found a Tom Tango piece that said that for pitchers BABIP normalizes at about 1000 innings.  That would be somewhere around 4000 batters. So for the batter it should normalize in 4000 PA. By then the aging curve has set in 

Probably he had a pretty specific degree of normalization in mind, that might be more stringent than it has to be to still get useful indications.  But it's in the same spirit of the quote frequently attributed to Tom Kelly that you need to wait 1000 PA to know what you've really got in a batter; don't know if Kelly ever applied the principle to how many innings are needed from a pitcher.

With statistics, you do the best you can with what you've got.  Humans make reasonable statistical inferences in many fields besides just baseball, accepting that there will be a few outliers because you can't wait for enough data to do better.  Unless they are life-and-death scenarios, you deal with the outliers and move on without a lot of remorse.  Forecasting and optimization-under-uncertainty are examples in industry.  Baseball front offices have to make decisions whether or not the amount of data they have access to fits academic standards, so they bank on the high threshold being across many players and the weirdness in any one player instance averages out.

Adding further complexity, I don't think Kelly (or Tango after him) was making a particularly statistical argument.  He surely was thinking at least as much about all the adjustments and counter-adjustments pitchers and batters make against one another.  It takes a while for the "book" on a player to stop being edited constantly.

Meanwhile, Keaschall is well under the Tom Kelly Threshold.  We'll mostly just have to wait and see, since none of us are tasked to make a financial decision in his regard anyway.  If I were betting, I'd surely put my money on the side of the betting line that says his .340 BABIP is a tad high.  But as a Twins fan I can hope that that bet loses.