What does "contention" mean to you?

[LakesPibble]

I keep seeing articles talking about the Twins being in "contention" still.  Can't trade Buxton, we're in contention.  Not going to sell at the deadline, we're in contention.

Is getting the third wild card with a team that has no reasonable path, unless everyone got hot at the same time for a month, to winning in the post-season, really being in contention?

PS I'm old enough to remember when 2 teams from each league made the playoffs.  And yes 6 teams in the playoffs keeps more fans interested longer.  But still.

[The Great Hambino]

Contention means not being mathematically eliminated from the third Wild Card on September 1

I'm Tom Pohlad, and I approve this message

[Linus]

To me, contention means fielding a team that is good enough to advance in the playoffs. Sneaking into the third wild card spot in a weird year does not qualify. I want the FO to be big boys and make the decisions necessary to open up a window where the Twins could be good for several years. 

[MMBoys93]

Sneaking into a WC spot with an 81-81 record, knowing full well that they’re likely to get swept isn’t contention for me.

Teams get hot and bad teams win a series all the time, but very rarely can get to and win a World Series.

Since 1960, 5 teams have won a WS with less than 90 wins. 83-88 wins. 83 being the Cardinals and Twins obviously in 1987. That’s 7% of the champions in those 60+ years. 

[TheLeviathan]

We're rope-a-doping the Dodgers right now!  Austin Voth lulling them into thinking we're a team that throws out an array of terrible dudes from the bullpen....then pounce in October!

Last week's vibes made it two days this week before reality set in for most folks it seems.

[Riverbrian]

Contention means you could make the playoffs.

I strongly disagree with anyone who feels that certain teams who make the playoffs don't have a chance.

Many of us were alive in 1987. Les Straker was our third starter. We had 8 maybe 9 players on the playoff roster who were below average OPS during the regular season. We all watched the Rangers barely get in and beat the D-Backs who barely got in to the playoffs in the 2023 World Series. 

I don't believe that anyone... including those in front offices around the league... including me... has the ability to accurately predict who will win or lose each play off series. None of us could have predicted that Gladden, Lombardozzi and Gagne would have produced a higher OPS than Kirby Puckett over 50 playoff AB's when that trio produced OPS+ of 76 - 70 and 92 during the regular season. 

The margins in the regular season are razor thin and that's in a larger sample. One Win Every 10 games is the difference between a 97 Win Season and a 81 win Season.  

The playoffs are a small sample every single year where the regular season no longer matters and past stats no longer matter. You can go 13 and 9 and win the thing. The Twins stretch of games from April 2 to April 13 would have won the ALCS and put us in the World Series. You can argue that Kansas City, Tampa, Detroit and Boston are not quality but I'll refer you back to the previous paragraph. One Win Every 10 games is the difference between a 97 win season and a 81 win season. 

Did anyone predict Eddie Rosario to be the 2021 NLCS MVP or Jorge Solar to be the World Series MVP? Randy Arozerana in 2020? Howie Kendrick in 2019? Steve Pearce in 2018? Chris Taylor in 2017? Ben Zobrist in 2016? Daniel Murphy and Alcides Escobar in 2015? Scutaro, and Delmon Young in 2014?  Cody Ross in 2013? Placido Polanco and David Eckstein in 2012? Scott Brosius? Bucky Dent?

That's a list of players who very few would have bet on to lead their clubs to destiny. There is also list to be compiled of players who were not very good in the playoffs that everyone would have bet on. A list of Clayton Kershaw type playoff performances. 

Players get hot... they get cold and you can't predict when that will happen but you can predict that hot and cold is going to happen.  

Make the playoffs and you have a chance. A legitimate chance. Put the long term stats down and just enjoy watching the small sample play of Evan Carter at age 20. Try to figure how Mookie Betts can produce a .871, .782, .492, .083, .951 and .648 OPS from 2020 to 2025. 

Contention means contention. 

[Vanimal46]

4 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Many of us were alive in 1987

I was not. I’m 36 with a mortgage. That is almost 40 years ago now. 

4 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

We all watched the Rangers barely get in and beat the D-Backs who barely got in to the playoffs in the 2023 World Series. 

? The Rangers had 90 wins and had 2 players finish 2nd and 3rd in MVP voting. And 6 all stars. 

[Riverbrian]

16 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

I was not. I’m 36 with a mortgage. That is almost 40 years ago now. 

? The Rangers had 90 wins and had 2 players finish 2nd and 3rd in MVP voting. And 6 all stars. 

The Rangers were a great baseball team in 2023. So were the D-Backs. But these were the 5th and 6th seeds who put it together at the right time. The D-Backs Swept the Brewers (92 wins) and Dodgers (100 wins) while the Rangers swept the Rays (99 Wins) and Orioles (101 Wins). They both won they ALCS and NLCS with a game 7 against the Astros and Phillies who both had 90 Wins during the regular season. 

The overall point is. You can't predict that. I can't predict that. The front offices can't predict that. 

You need a deep roster to survive the 162 and make the playoffs. Once in the playoffs... it's a small sample where 13-9 wins a World Series. In that small sample... you need some players to step up and they are not always the guys that you think are going to step up. 

If you can get in... Get in. 

Now do I believe the Twins have that deep roster to make the playoffs... I don't... but my opinion shouldn't matter because I've been wrong before, 

If any of us can predict what happens in 2026 on June 24th. Place your bets. The Pay out will be enormous.  

[The Great Hambino]

Citing the 1987 Twins as proof that simply making the playoffs is true contention doesn't hold up for me.

For one, there were only two rounds of playoffs.  Today's Twins would have to fight through four (all without homefield advantage - more on that later).  I'd feel much better about their chances if they were somehow getting a bye to the ALCS.

For two, the 87 Twins benefitted from an extreme imbalance in divisional quality that arguably gave them a competitive advantage beyond simply an easier path into the playoffs.  They clinched the weak West with five games left in the season, took their foot off the gas, and lost those last five games.  This made their record look worse than it probably should've been - they don't get brought up nearly as much in this context if they had, say, 88 wins instead of 85 - and gave them the luxury of resting up before the playoffs.  On the other hand, the 98-win Tigers were in a dogfight with the Blue Jays until the last day of the season - they clinched on the final day by completing a sweep of the Blue Jays in which they won all three games by a single run.  And with no Wild Card, this was effectively an additional elimination series.  Normally the 98 win team gets to coast into the playoffs while the 85 win team is fighting for their lives.  Here it was flipped.  Good news for rest in the rest vs rust debate.  Bad news for the idea that momentum heading into the playoffs is a thing that matters.

For two-part two, the 87 Twins were gifted home-field advantage throughout the playoffs because of the rotational nature of how it was handed out back then for both the ALCS and the World Series, even though their opponents had superior records.  

For three, the 87 Twins pitching staff was carried by two horses at a time that they could be counted on to go consistently on short rest in a playoff setting.  This allowed them to use them in 67% of playoff games as opposed to 40% of regular season games.  That's a huge difference and a big reason why they were able to play above expectations in the playoffs.

None of these unique conditions would benefit a potential 2026 wild card Twins team.  Saying they could just because the 87 Twins did ignores a whole lot of context.

A better comparison would be last year's Reds.  Their 83 wins did technically sneak them into the playoffs, where they immediately became cannon fodder.  They were in no way, shape, or form a contender in any real sense.   

"Well, they were in the playoffs so they had a chance!!!"  Well, anyone that buys a Powerball ticket has a chance of hitting the jackpot.  That doesn't make it a wise investment.  Just like bypassing chances to make your team meaningfully better in the near future - or even chasing the dragon and making low-probability win-now moves and making your team worse in the near future - because you have a longshot chance at being the 2025 Reds would not be a wise investment.

[Mike Sixel]

As a SCOTUS member once said, you know it when you see it. I don't see it.

[The Great Hambino]

10 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

As a SCOTUS member once said, you know it when you see it. I don't see it.

Does this mean they're engaging in softcore contention?

[jorgenswest]

To me this year’s team is a competitive one for me thus far. I would not classify it as a contender. A competitive team can find their way to the playoffs and have success. A contender should be expected to have some playoff success.

The Guardians find a way to be a competitive team every year. The Dodgers find a way to contend every year.

[Brock Beauchamp]

To me, contention is being within a couple of games of a playoff spot at the end of the season. It's a pretty loose definition, but I don't really consider advancing or not. Baseball is too random to try to predict that sort of thing.

Are the Twins contenders? Only in the loosest sense of the word. They're hole-ridden, and a pretty weak team overall. Still, I'd prefer to see them hang around and try to get into October baseball than not. It's more fun, even if their likelihood of going anywhere is low.

Their position right now makes their complete and utter failure to address the bullpen even more unacceptable than it was when it happened.