Will this team be the worst of the last four years?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Yep. The atrocious play is bound to abate a bit if only through dumb luck.

 

It's a logical fallacy to predict that players will underperform simply because different players in the past have underperformed and happened to be wearing the same laundry.

 

At some point, the Twins are bound to get career-level performances from a handful of players which is enough to propel them above their 2011-2013 levels.

 

I agree with you in general, but first of all, a lot of the players ARE the same:

 

- Suzuki for Morneau might be the only real difference in our starting position players from last year (in addition to the AAAA DH du jour subbing for Doumit, I guess)

 

- 3/5 of the starting rotation was here last year too, and 2 of them performed poorly (and the other is a fair regression candidate, coming off a career best ERA+ at age 32). And one of the new "improved" starters (Hughes) was among the worst regular starters in all of MLB last year, performing around Scott Diamond level. There's still plenty of room for this group to improve on 2012-2013 and STILL be below average.

 

- Bullpen is likely the same too, which is actually a positive for this club, but it also means there isn't likely to be any "unexpected" improvement from this area

 

And like the past few seasons, there still isn't a surplus of talent anywhere on the roster, or surplus assets anywhere in the system, lowering the odds of gaining wins through trade.

 

Also, it's not just players. The coaches and front office are basically unchanged, and they were responsible for the acquisition and development (or lack thereof) of the above players. Also, past evidences suggests that this front office is willing to tolerate a fair amount of losing (90+ losses, 4+ years) in the name of rebuilding, so there isn't much impetus for major in-season changes (even if the surplus was there to make it happen).

[notoriousgod71]

And looking at the original post, notoriousgod wasn't necessarily defining it in terms of W-L either when he/she starts looking at how many plate appearances younger players get, etc.

 

This is one of those seasons where a team has to decide what is more important: trying to get enough wins to (hopefully) stop the bleeding in terms of season ticket sales and make watching this season's games more palatable or trying to get younger players experience at the ML level to try to hasten better days in the future.

 

Each poster gets to decide what his/her priority would be and to decide whether this season will be better/worse in meeting that goal.

 

Just to clarify... he would be the correct term!

 

While I didn't necessarily specify wins/losses, I would rather lose 120 games with rookies that have some potential than 95 with a roster of guys that won't be with the team in a year. But I think giving ABs to Kubel, Willingham, Suzuki hurt us in both regards. We have completely tanked the past three Septembers, so it's not just a 2013 problem.

 

The Twins go through starting pitchers at a ridiculous rate due to injuries/ineffectiveness/trades. I'm assuming our opening day rotation will be Nolasco, Hughes, Correia, Pelfrey, Gibson. Who is the second wave when someone gets injured or Correia is salary dumped at the deadline? Meyer, Diamond, Deduno?

 

If Deduno starts the year in the pen, I think it's less likely that he be summoned into the starting rotation mid-season as he will need to rebuild his endurance which is a difficult thing to do mid-season. Who is 4th in line? 5th in line?

 

I really wish I was more of an optimist, but in this case I am unable to have any positive feelings about this roster (outside of Arcia's hopeful development).

[mcrow]

I think that the Twins will have a better team than they have had in the last few years but by how much is a question. Really depends on what they get out of the lineup because the rotation is definitely better.

[jharaldson]

I don't think the 2014 Twins are going to be the worst of the past 4 years but this article from Mackey lingers in my mind as I consider that:

 

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Projecting_the_Minnesota_Twins_2013_regular_season_record032613

 

For anyone who still clings to the notion that the Twins' pitching staff will somehow be worse than last year's historically bad crew, consider this -- Diamond returns to the rotation in mid-April, Worley owns a 3.50 ERA in two years with the Phillies, and Gibson could be called up as soon as late-April or May.

 

Plus, Nick Blackburn (23 home runs allowed in 98 innings last year), Carl Pavano (6.00 ERA in 11 starts with a bum shoulder) and Francisco Liriano (5.31 ERA and 55 walks in 100 innings) are all addition by subtraction.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, if it is not just about wins and losses, then yes, I think this year they will finally start to see some guys come up from the minors that contribute. Maybe not as fast as I'd want, but I think it is inevitable.

[tobi0040]

Brian Dozier

Josamil Pinto

Aaron Hicks

Oswaldo Arcia

Kyle Gibson

 

That's five players who have not had a full year of success and have decent odds of doing so in 2014. You are free to anticipate their collective failure. It is your unsubstantiated opinion. But you can't deny that it is three more than they had at this time last year.

 

Add Meyer to that list. He could get 18-20 starts if he is up in June. Not a full year, but exciting and a lot more to look forward to. I would argue the last time we had a pitching prospect come up that was this talented was 2006.

[Brock Beauchamp]

- 3/5 of the starting rotation was here last year too, and 2 of them performed poorly (and the other is a fair regression candidate, coming off a career best ERA+ at age 32). And one of the new "improved" starters (Hughes) was among the worst regular starters in all of MLB last year, performing around Scott Diamond level. There's still plenty of room for this group to improve on 2012-2013 and STILL be below average.

 

And that's just it... The rotation can be worth several wins more than 2013 and still be below average. I don't expect anything better than mediocrity from the rotation and that is still miles above the 2013 squad, which was several wins below replacement level.

[TheLeviathan]

-4 offensive WAR is still far shy of the +8 or so WAR we should see from the starters just through them not being completely awful. Steamer has the four starters (excluding Correia) pegged for about a 5 WAR, which is a whopping +9 WAR over 2013 according to BBRef (excluding Deduno's starts, as he is not likely to be a starter out of Florida but should provide solid production through the season and help ensure that your predicted bullpen regression isn't particularly impactful).

 

Even if you stick with the +9 and the -4 for the offense we're talking about a wash when you factor out the good luck from last year.

 

And, in my eyes, it's perfectly fair to talk about probabilities about aging and health. Especially when you are citing the performance of a multitude of injury replacements or other dreck that was called up because we had no other choice. As if this team will march through 162 games without having to dip down into the dreck just below the current dreck. It's completely unfair to say "Well let's not talk injuries....but just wait until these guys that won't get injured replace the injury replacements of last year!"

 

The realist in my pegs them for a wash....the depth chart and the reality of injuries pegs them for worse.

[TheLeviathan]

Also, all these arguments sound the same:

 

Nolasco/Hughes/Pelfry/Gibson just HAVE to be better than Hendricks, Hernandez, Albers,Worley

 

vs.

 

Correia/Pelfrey/Diamond/Deduno/Worley just HAVe to be better than Devries, Vasquez, Hendricks, Blackburn, and Liriano

 

How'd that turn out? 4.77 vs. 4.55 - technically right and utterly meaningless.

[Otto von Ballpark]

And that's just it... The rotation can be worth several wins more than 2013 and still be below average. I don't expect anything better than mediocrity from the rotation and that is still miles above the 2013 squad, which was several wins below replacement level.

 

I guess that's the silver lining on being so bad in 2013. On the other hand, 3 of our 5 projected starters need to significantly improve over 2013 even to reach that modest "below average" point. And the other 2 projected starters have multiple recent seasons below average too.

 

It still has to rank as one of the worst rotations in baseball, right? That fits with the Vegas 70.5 forecast too.

 

And you could improve the rotation to that mediocre level and still lose ~96 games just on offensive/defensive stagnation, or even just Pythag (un)luck. Nothing catastrophic needed.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Add Meyer to that list. He could get 18-20 starts if he is up in June. Not a full year, but exciting and a lot more to look forward to. I would argue the last time we had a pitching prospect come up that was this talented was 2006.

 

Meyer excites me too, but he's going to be on an innings limit, no? That, plus the veteran SP under contract, I feel like best case, Meyer gets Gibson 2013 treatment (10 GS).

[Otto von Ballpark]

And, in my eyes, it's perfectly fair to talk about probabilities about aging and health.

 

Mauer is the elephant in the room that no one seems to be talking about. Dude is still coming back from a concussion, and he's not getting younger. Would not be surprised to see him fall short of his recent performance, which would be another difference the 2014 would have to make up.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Also, all these arguments sound the same:

 

Nolasco/Hughes/Pelfry/Gibson just HAVE to be better than Hendricks, Hernandez, Albers,Worley

 

vs.

 

Correia/Pelfrey/Diamond/Deduno/Worley just HAVe to be better than Devries, Vasquez, Hendricks, Blackburn, and Liriano

 

How'd that turn out? 4.77 vs. 4.55 - technically right and utterly meaningless.

 

And there is no correlation other than uniform.

 

Past underperformance by players has no bearing on potential future underperformance by different players.

[Brock Beauchamp]

And, in my eyes, it's perfectly fair to talk about probabilities about aging and health. Especially when you are citing the performance of a multitude of injury replacements or other dreck that was called up because we had no other choice. As if this team will march through 162 games without having to dip down into the dreck just below the current dreck. It's completely unfair to say "Well let's not talk injuries....but just wait until these guys that won't get injured replace the injury replacements of last year!

 

Absolutely. Except that in 2014, the next starter in line was the Twins' second best starter of 2013 by WAR.

 

Unless disaster strikes, the Twins shouldn't have to dip below Diamond or Meyer on the depth chart. That's a big step up from De Vries and Albers and a few others who should remain nameless.

[TheLeviathan]

And there is no correlation other than uniform.

 

Past underperformance by players has no bearing on potential future underperformance by different players.

 

No, but it sure destroys the "well they just HAVE to be better" meme. Three years running, I need to see it first.

 

Also, this team doesn't need some Cusackian apocalypse for the dam to break as you keep suggesting. The margin is far thinner than that.

[cmathewson]

Absolutely. Except that in 2014, the next starter in line was the Twins' second best starter of 2013 by WAR.

 

Unless disaster strikes, the Twins shouldn't have to dip below Diamond or Meyer on the depth chart. That's a big step up from De Vries and Albers and a few others who should remain nameless.

 

That's the clincher. Guys will struggle. Guys will get hurt. But the 6-10 slots on the depth chart are significantly better: Deduno, Diamond, Meyer, Johnson, and May.

[golfboy1]

Well, at least we're not being unreasonable in our representation of the other side right? Yeesh.

 

A bullpen regression could cost several of those wins in and of themselves. Zips has Mauer losing at least 2 wins off his WAR. Pelfrey is projected as .1 vs. 2.1 last year. 6 wins can get chewed up pretty quick when you have no depth and limited starting talent.

 

So to address that unfair hyperbole above - the pitching staff may make up those 6 wins. (MAY) So right there, we could assume an improvement. We could also see a regression from the bullpen that creates a team closer to it's Expected w/l and eat up 4-5 wins of that 6 right there. Then you throw in the drop from Morneau to Suzuki, the drop from Doumit to Kubel (as it stands today), and you're right back where you were.

 

That isn't every single player and it doesn't even factor in many projections expecting a dip from Mauer. Or expecting Willingham sidelined again. Or any number of very possible scenarios that aren't pessimistic but just reasonable. (Any injuries to this offense could get VERY ugly, VERY fast) So when you factor in an almost total lack of depth to go with these shaky scenarios it isn't hard to see them taking a step backward.

 

 

Before spring training I thought 75 wins was a reasonable #. That might not happen but I still don't see this team being the worst of the last 4 years.

 

Nolasco & Hughes are a big jump from the guys they are replacing. Getting 60 starts from them alone will make a big difference.

 

I don't know why ZIPS is projecting Mauer to have such a big dip. He missed a lot of games last year & if he stays healthy I don't see any reason for such a large regression. They have Pelfrey going from 2.1 down to 1.1(not .1) which is possible but he could also improve. I like Gibson's chance of turning into a solid pitcher.

 

I think the bullpen should be ok & they have some good arms in AAA for depth.

 

The offense is going to suck..no question about it but the optimist in me is hopeful that Willingham will rebound & Hicks will make a big jump forward. Arcia & maybe Pinto are the only other players that could make a big difference since I don't have hope that Parmelee/Plouffe/Florimon will ever improve much & they are just placeholders at this point.

 

As someone else mentioned, I think the whole division will be weaker so that might factor into them winning a few more games than they otherwise would. They are still going to suck...just not as much as the last few years. (IMHO)

[LaBombo]

Brian Dozier

Josamil Pinto

Aaron Hicks

Oswaldo Arcia

Kyle Gibson

 

That's five players who have not had a full year of success and have decent odds of doing so in 2014. You are free to anticipate their collective failure. It is your unsubstantiated opinion. But you can't deny that it is three more than they had at this time last year.

Nowhere did I say anything about the odds of their failing, at least that I can remember. Just pointed out that if guys like Hicks, Arcia, and Gibson don't produce this year that the Twins shouldn't be counting on getting much from them in the future.

 

Oddly enough, though I'm part of the bearish, 'bad fan' crowd, I consider Dozier's 2013 a success, and won't be terribly disappointed if he doesn't improve on it. And Pinto doesn't belong in the group of young players I was referring to either, because he didn't do anything last year to raise concerns about his future ceiling. He did just the opposite.

 

As for the other three, Gibson pitched well in AAA and Arcia hit righthanders enough to have value in that role, so anticipating better seasons from them seems reasonable. Still not sure why people would feel more optimistic about Hicks this year compared to the start of last season; he gained valuable experience last year but looked bad doing it, so that seems like a wash at best to me.

[LaBombo]

Mauer is the elephant in the room that no one seems to be talking about. Dude is still coming back from a concussion, and he's not getting younger. Would not be surprised to see him fall short of his recent performance, which would be another difference the 2014 would have to make up.

Had thought about bringing that up earlier, but decided it would make me an even worse fan...

[cmathewson]

I've seen enough spring training a to be highly skeptical of drawing conclusions from practice games. We really won't know what we have until June.

 

On the plus side, we start the season against the White Sox and Cleveland rather than rather than the Tigers and Red Sox. Maybe we'll get off on the right foot.

[Heimer]

I'll say it! This will be the best season in four years.

 

The best rotation in four years, a healthy Maur, and one or two other contributers on offence will be enough for a 73 win season.

[cmathewson]

Nowhere did I say anything about the odds of their failing, at least that I can remember. Just pointed out that if guys like Hicks, Arcia, and Gibson don't produce this year that the Twins shouldn't be counting on getting much from them in the future.

 

Oddly enough, though I'm part of the bearish, 'bad fan' crowd, I consider Dozier's 2013 a success, and won't be terribly disappointed if he doesn't improve on it. And Pinto doesn't belong in the group of young players I was referring to either, because he didn't do anything last year to raise concerns about his future ceiling. He did just the opposite.

 

As for the other three, Gibson pitched well in AAA and Arcia hit righthanders enough to have value in that role, so anticipating better seasons from them seems reasonable. Still not sure why people would feel more optimistic about Hicks this year compared to the start of last season; he gained valuable experience last year but looked bad doing it, so that seems like a wash at best to me.

 

I'm not one to entertain highly unlikely scenarios. The odds of one of those players failing are decent. The odds of all those players failing in the same year are slim.

[jokin]

Also, all these arguments sound the same:

 

Nolasco/Hughes/Pelfry/Gibson just HAVE to be better than Hendricks, Hernandez, Albers,Worley

 

vs.

 

Correia/Pelfrey/Diamond/Deduno/Worley just HAVe to be better than Devries, Vasquez, Hendricks, Blackburn, and Liriano

 

How'd that turn out? 4.77 vs. 4.55 - technically right and utterly meaningless.

 

Based on recent history the following results should be possible and not unexpected:

 

Nolasco- 4.00 ERA 3.1 fWAR 210 (3.67/yr avg. WAR)

Hughes- 4.33 ERA 1.8 fWAR ("Out of New York" effect)

Correia- 4.25 ERA 1 fWAR (Contract year, 4 months w/ Twins)

Pelfrey- 4.19 ERA 3 fWAR (2013- 2.1 WAR/3.99 FIP/3.59 ERA in July/Aug)

Gibson- 4.50 ERA 1.1 WAR (Like Pelf, 2nd year back from TJ)

Meyer- 4.20 ERA 1.3 WAR (That's the usually negative ZIPS projection)

Deduno- 3.75 ERA 0.7 WAR (Spot start stats only)

 

That's 12 fWAR from your top 7 starters.

 

Nolasco- 210 IP/33 GS

Hughes- 185 IP/30 GS

Correia- 125 IP/20 GS

Pelfrey- 190 IP/31 GS

Gibson- 110 IP/20 GS

Meyer- 110 IP/20 GS

Deduno- 50 IP/8GS

 

2014 SP totals- 980 IP/162 GS/~4.25 ERA/12 WAR

 

2013 SP totals- 871 IP/162 GS/5.26 ERA/4.6 WAR

 

Obviously, that's potentially more than just technically right. And the extra 109 IP eases a lot of stress on the bullpen from which you expect significant regression (overall, with the potential new arms coming in, I disagree with that conclusion). No pie in the sky career years in this forecast and no starts from the PJ Walters/Cole DeVries/Liam Hendriks/Pedro Hernandez fringy crew.

[diehardtwinsfan]

MODERATOR NOTE:

 

Let's put this good fan/bad fan meme to rest please.

 

Thanks you.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, there you have it. If you only cook the books so every pitcher has a slightly better than average year, there are no injuries, and luck is neutral we'll win 68/69 games.

 

I'm not sure that had the effect on my pessimism you intended.

[jokin]

Well, there you have it. If you only cook the books so every pitcher has a slightly better than average year, there are no injuries, and luck is neutral we'll win 68/69 games.

 

I'm not sure that had the effect on my pessimism you intended.

 

The books weren't cooked, the numbers cited are reasonable estimates, based on projections and career averages and trends. And you will determine, and are entitled to, your own level of pessimism, but your previous comparison to the current Starting Rotation was more than a little "out there". And as Christy stated, the depth beyond the first 7 pitchers is way better than last year, with Diamond, Johnson, May and a couple other actual prospects in AAA who may well emerge.

 

So in answering the OP's topic, the Rotation stands a good chance to be the best in the last 4 years, and provides evidence for a win total in the low 70's (which is my prediciton).

[Joe A. Preusser]

Couldn't I, by your same logic, argue the fact that I continue to support the team and care about it inspite of my belief that the team won't be very good makes me a better fan? After all, I don't have to pretend it's all roses to care, right?

 

Or, better yet, maybe we're all fans and trying to maintain a superiority about your fandom is juvenile and unnecessary.

 

 

I'd prefer to put this to rest, but I have to point out that some sort of "fan hierarchy" was hardly the main point of my initial post. I griped about all the pessimism and then wrote a longwinded rundown of why I thought the Twins wouldn't be worse than last year. Another poster chose to take one line out of 50 an make an issue of it so I responded. Regardless, I am ready to talk about something else if you all are.

[cmathewson]

I would characterize it as glass-half-empty fans vs glass-with-a-mouthful-of-backwash fans. I have only seen one glass-half-full post.

[TheLeviathan]

So in answering the OP's topic, the Rotation stands a good chance to be the best in the last 4 years, and provides evidence for a win total in the low 70's (which is my prediciton).

 

I haven't denied that the rotation is likely a little better, but it's hardly a given. Those two things are very different statements.

 

Even after you gave virtually every starter a full season projection (no injuries) and better than career-norm performances (certainly better than the previous few years in almost all cases) - you still barely account for the team's luck last year. I don't know how that can lead to optimism unless you believe the team will be 5 games lucky again next year.

 

You're entitled to that, maybe their bullpen is the key to that, but I wouldn't bank on it.

[Beezer07]

This thread reads like a contest to see who can be the most bleak, as if it's some kind of race to the bottom of projecting win totals. I have no idea if the Twins will be better or worse. I think the pitching will be notably better. I think the offense will be slightly better. I just don't see so many terrible offensive seasons from last year repeating themselves this year.

 

Call me unrealistic, call me overoptimistic, call me inattentive to what's happened during Spring Training (which would be true because Spring Training stats and results are meaningless).

 

I'm just really, really excited that Twins baseball is almost here again!