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

[ashbury]

This thread reads like a contest to see who can be the most bleak

 

Moderator's note: There is also a fair amount of personal sniping that needs to stop. Take the "you said" "no I actually said" bickering to PM if you must pursue it at all.

[jokin]

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.

 

I responded to you specifically based on this "out there" statement:

 

 

Also, all these arguments sound the same:

 

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

 

Of course, nothing is a given- I said there's "a good chance to be the best in the last 4 years", and of course injuries are a possibility, but as I demonstrated, the stats cited are completely within the realm of possibility, and the 6th and 7th starters offer much more upside in the event of injury.

 

 

[you projected](certainly better than the previous few years in almost all cases)

 

 

Nope, not true.

Nolasco, projected lower than last year.

Hughes, projected on a bounceback at slighly worse than his decent 2012 numbers.

Pelfrey, projected lower than his 2013 July/Aug ERA and lower than his 3.99 FIP of 2013.

Correia, projected slightly lower than last year- in a contract year.

Deduno, projected basically the same as last year, pretty doable in a diminished SP role.

 

Meyer, I straight up used the usually negative ZIPS projection.

 

Gibson, you got me, I am optimistic that he can start 20 games with a 4.50 ERA.

 

These are basic facts, grounded far more in reality than your comparison of this year's rotation to Hendricks, Hernandez, Albers, Worley.

 

Even after you gave virtually every starter a full season projection (no injuries) and better than career-norm performances

 

Nolasco, Hughes and Pelfrey were the only guys of whom I gave full-season projections. Correia will be gone by the deadline and Gibson and Meyer will llikely be up and down, with Deduno maybe getting 8 spot starts. Pitching is at least 70% of the game, and you can account for, and make a lot of, your own luck by simply keeping your team in more ballgames. This SP group is far more likely to do that than any time in the last 4 years. And yes, that improvement will resound to the BP, for which there's little reason to think that, as a complete group with new additions, that they can't be as good as last year, or even a little more.

[TheLeviathan]

jokin - you literally projected them all but Hughes to be better than their career averages and for none of them to get hurt. It's not unrealistic, but it's clearly optimistic. The point being, even granting that....the team is still marginally better unless they get lucky again next year. Even cooking the books on the optimistic side doesn't yield a real impressive result. That's the issue.

 

My post was just a comical comparison of how we keep hearing the same arguments about how the guys replaced the previous year will make the team way better. We heard it "had" to happen last year too and it didn't because optimistic projections insist on ignoring injuries and assume progression, not regression or the unanticipated.

 

I think it'll probably be a bit better, I'm just dubious of how much until several of these guys show that they are an actual upgrade.

[DocBauer]

My takes, FWIW.

 

They play 'em for a reason. All 162 of them. There are big surprises every year, players and teams, both positive and negative. I am excited, very excited, for the future of our beloved team over the next few seasons based on the talent currently on the roster, knocking on the door, and coming down the street a year or two away from knocking. Realistically, if HALF of the Twins top 20 prospects fall by the wayside, the other 10-ish, with youngsters up now, the Twins will still be putting an exciting, quality and competitive team on the field soon. (Select trades and FA's could supplement as well)

 

But to THIS season.

 

Consider me an optimist or glass half full fan. I love my team to perform well in ST, make a statement, and get the world excited. But history has shown over and over again than records in ST are meaningless for far too many reasons to even delve in to. Many are the teams to have positive and negative ST records, only to reverse said numbers when the season plays out.

 

Not getting too involved in numbers and statistics, which can be played different ways, and just assuming health, (always a factor in ANY sport) the Twins bullpen should be quite solid this year. Overworked mightily, they still factored as a strong unit last season overall. They should be no worse this season, should be better when not so stretched, and would seem to have some decent reinforcements available in the minors. (Guerra, Tonkin, Ibarra, Hoffman, Johnson)

 

Barring some total collapse, Nolasco, Hughes, Correia (at least to begin the season), Pelfrey (further removed from his TJ recovery) and Gibson make up the best rotation this team has had in at least a few seasons. And there is no doubt winning and competitiveness begins with SP. There are also future possibles such as Deduno, Meyer, Darnell, May and Summers possibly.

 

There are some questions about the defense, but C should be solid, as well as 1B, SS, 2B and CF.

 

The biggest question is probably the offense. To be honest, not to simplify or do a cop-out, but as stated before, it simply would be almost impossible to be worse than last year. Choices have to be made. Not talking all-star status, but for a rebuilding team, you either need a talented young player establishing himself at a spot, or a solid place holder for a more talented player about ready to take over, or a quality veteran producer helping your team win and provide an example, helping set a winning/competitive tone for the future.

 

Some of those pieces are in place with Mauer, Dozier, Arcia and Hicks and Pinto (presumably and probably) with Suzuki offering an experienced and helping hand, and, Plouffe, optimistically, providing at least something decent offensively and defensively while waiting for the arrival of Sano. Floriman at SS is debatable and a very hot topic. But in the short term, he does provide the necessary defense needed. Hiding in the #9 hole with some speed and at least a little potential, things aren't all that bad.

 

I feel the biggest problem offensively, to be honest, is LF and DH. If those two positions could be settled, I think we'd all feel a lot better about this team's offensive potential, and thus, competitive potential overall. There is some potential there, I suppose. But these are the two spots that truly concern me, and want to drain my half-full glass.

[jokin]

jokin - you literally projected them all but Hughes to be better than their career averages and for none of them to get hurt. It's not unrealistic, but it's clearly optimistic. The point being, even granting that....the team is still marginally better unless they get lucky again next year. Even cooking the books on the optimistic side doesn't yield a real impressive result. That's the issue.

 

My post was just a comical comparison of how we keep hearing the same arguments about how the guys replaced the previous year will make the team way better. We heard it "had" to happen last year too and it didn't because optimistic projections insist on ignoring injuries and assume progression, not regression or the unanticipated.

 

I think it'll probably be a bit better, I'm just dubious of how much until several of these guys show that they are an actual upgrade.

 

I don't think either one of us can anticipate or care to predict who will get injured. I did say that they now potentially have 7 guys who appear to have the ability to have real qualifications to be able to get major leaguers out, so there are reasonable alternatives should an injury occur. And as others have stated, the element of luck concering health is bound to change- especially when you improve your luck by having a few more veterans with a reasonable track record of good health.

 

But let's talk about assumptions of regression. Pelfrey seems destined towards "regression", but positively, as does Hughes. I optimistically predicted some relative negative regression for Nolasco and Correia, just not all the way back to the mean. And clearly, I am granting far more value to recent results than career averages. And I'll plead guilty to assuming some realistic "progression" on the parts of both Gibson and Meyer (with the help of ZIPS and Steamer, I might add).

 

And while my prediciton isn't an "impressive result", I never claimed it to be- it's clearly not where the Twins need to be if they hope to compete sooner rather than later, but most importantly, that is not the point made by the OP in topicing this thread originally. In that respect, we appear to be talking past each other, but there's a crystal clear point, which is one we all should agree upon, Vance Worley was designated as the "Ace" of the staff just about one year ago, the pitching staff had only one direction to go from there- I am much more optimistic about the 2 proven acquisitions and the 2 up-and-comers producing decent years than I was about Worley- even before his meltdown last season.

[Kwak]

Stating the obvious: the thread title of "Will this team be the worst of the last four years?" clearly sends a negative message and virtually begs for responses in kind, and simply winning all of 67 this season would qualify as the best of the four years--hardly an endorsement of success.

[Physics Guy]

If a few things go bad, they could lose 100. If everything breaks to the good, they could be .500.

 

Probably why the Vegas line is 70.5.

[Halsey Hall]

Probably why the Vegas line is 70.5.

 

70.5? Gee I hope their close, Vegas that is. I'll be surprised and very happy to see 70 wins but would put the house I won last year on the under this year.

[bird]

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.

 

Whew. Finally. A GOOD fan.

[Hugh Morris]

My post was just a comical comparison of how we keep hearing the same arguments about how the guys replaced the previous year will make the team way better. We heard it "had" to happen last year too and it didn't because optimistic projections insist on ignoring injuries and assume progression, not regression or the unanticipated.

 

Coworker of mine told me that we'd have better weather in March than we did in February. But there it goes snowing again, and it's been cold. I guess by some metrics it was more temperate, but it was still awful weather. I'm skeptical about believing him when he says that April will be better still. He's such an optimist, I'm getting tired of hearing about it... next he'll say May and June look better too.

 

Another comical comparison in which a poster's point it the brunt of the joke and the argument has been reduced to an absurd level.

 

Jokin, I appreciate the effort you put into your predictions and showing your work. I'm substantially less rosy about Hughes and Nolasco than even your "realistic with a side of pessimism" projections are, but it's notable that even with those two performing worse than your projections, the rotation still improves over last year.

 

Regarding the thread topic, I can selectively cite stats from the last 3 years along with non-statistic justifications that suggest this Twins team is in Wild Card contention, and possibly better if Nathan succumbs to injury and the Tigers stumble further. Dozier, Pinto, Willingham, Plouffe and Mauer all hitting like they have during the best stretches of their careers and Arcia and Hicks becoming the .280/30/100 and .250/15/OBP+SLG guys that various websites have projected as their ceilings would have this as a potent offense backed up by a rotation that's Top 5 in the AL if Nolsaco's performance starts to match his peripherals, Hughes and Pelfrey recover previous form and Gibson and Meyer achieve their ceilings.

 

I'd call that only slightly less likely than everyone performing the worst they have in the last decade, all five major prospects fans are counting on flaming out and the Twins losing 100 games-thus becoming the worst team of the last 4 years.

 

Another season in the low-to-mid 60s for wins is certainly plausible-though I'd like to see some more detail on exactly why these players will fail (as opposed to the more general "they'll be bad because players last year disappointed too", which I think is a fair characterization of some of what I've seen thus far).

 

I'd be more tempted to put money on the over. Willingham and Mauer are the only ones at an age where diminished skills tend to drag stats down. Pinto and possibly Dozier are the only ones with performances last year that were substantially better than prior performance would indicate. The overall record in the last few years was sandbagged by atrocious Septembers with injuries and poor play. The variety of players [potentially] playing for their jobs and/or in contract years, as opposed to in the past (Dozier, Plouffe, Hicks, Hughes, Gibson, Willingham, Correia) should help mitigate that.

 

I could see the team winning between 65-75 games without anything too abnormal happening, just within the bounds of reasonable outcomes for individual players. But a worse record or greater disappointment than 2011 would legitimately stun me.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

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

Me too!

[tobi0040]

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.

 

Agree 100%. A ton of things need to go wrong for this rotation to have a 5.25 ERA. Nolasco and a non-Yankee stadium Hughes are hands down better pitchers than anything we had last year. Pelfrey will either be better than his 5.19 ERA or not get starts.

 

And we will likely replace one of five guys that threw 89 mph with no movement with Alex Meyer, who throws 97-98 with an 89 mph wide out slider.

 

This rotation will allow at least 50 fewer runs, and to me that is a dire scenario (average ERA of about 4.75). We were in 49 1 run games last year, so 50 fewer runs would be huge.

[tobi0040]

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).

 

I think Meyer gets a green light on June 1. He is too good to keep in the minors any longer. It makes no sense to keep him in AA or AAA and have KC pitching up here when he will be traded. Regarding an innings limit, it is tough to say. He didn't have TJ, he had shoulder soreness. If we are on track to win 75 games maybe they put him on a limit to be safe.

 

2012 in low and high A - 129 IP, 2.86 ERA, 1.10 WHIP, 139 K, 9.7 K/9

2013 in AA - 78 IP, 2.99 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, 100K, 11.7 K/9.

2013 Fall League 26 IP, 3.12 ERA, 1.04 WHIP, 28K, 9.7 K/9.

[Mike Sixel]

Giving up 50 less runs is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. OTOH, if you are going to use runs scored to project more wins (i.e., pythag), you should acknowledge they over achieved their pythag last year.....

 

 

I think they'll win a few more games than last year, the pitching was so bad last year than a marginal improvement just puts in them in the bottom 5-10, not the bottom of the league. The real question for me this year is about youth. Will this team finally commit to youth and learning what these prospects have or don't, or will we see old guys with no future trotted out there instead? To me, the issue is about their commitment to their own stated strategy, building through the minors. Kubel, Suzuki, Pelfrey, Willingham....those names don't make you think they are committed to their own strategy at all. Add in Tonkin sitting in AAA, and maybe Arcia going back down, and you wonder.....what exactly is their strategy?

[Brock Beauchamp]

If Meyer is on an innings limit, I can't see how it'd be lower than 170 or so, which makes it (mostly) a moot point. He might miss September, which is no big deal as the Twins will almost surely be out of contention at that point anyway.

 

Let's just hope that he doesn't throw 120 IP in the minors so that he only gets a handful of MLB starts.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Add in Tonkin sitting in AAA, and maybe Arcia going back down, and you wonder.....what exactly is their strategy?

 

I agree that the kids need to play but I don't see it being an issue.

 

Gibson is probably the fifth starter. Arcia is almost surely on the roster. Hicks looks to be on the roster.

 

That leaves Tonkin... It's unfortunate that the team doesn't have space for such a promising arm but I can't fault the team for holding on to Deduno/Swarzak/Diamond for a bit at the expense of Tonkin staying in the minors for a month or two.

 

After the last three seasons, the Twins need as many backup plans for the rotation as possible. It will sort itself out quickly enough.

[golfboy1]

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.

 

 

I think the rotation should be significantly better. Nolasco is better than anyone they have had in the last 3 years. Hughes stats from pitching in the AL East, in a hitter friendly park( in a down yr) are still better than the starters he is replacing. I don't think it's out of the question that Gibson will step forward & Meyers(& others) are a possibility down the road.

 

I don't see much @ AAA for hitting so the current guys like Arcia, Pinto, Hicks are going to have to come thru for the offense to be even average. I don't know who is capable of leading off & we have about 4 guys who should be batting 9th.

 

I think you are overstating last years team luck. The were 3 games above their Pythagoreon W-L, not 5. That doesn't seem like much of a factor to me since they have been above the last 4 or 5 yrs. Hey, maybe Gardy has been managing the h### out of the team the last few years!

 

It's been interesting reading this thread to see everyone's opinion. I'd like to state that even though we may disagree I realize we are all Twins fans or we wouldn't even be on this board. Hopefully, this will be the last really crappy team for awhile

[Otto von Ballpark]

Out of curiosity, I found a few other over/under lines from different sportsbooks: 71, 69, and 65.5 in addition to the 70.5 mentioned on this thread. (The 65.5 also carried a "-115u" note, which means you would win less money taking the under. Talk about pessimists!)

 

FWIW, I think all of these odds were posted before Sano's injury too. To be honest, between that, Rosario's suspension, and Meyer getting pushed back by his injury last year, a considerable amount of wind has left my 2014 opening day sails, even if they wouldn't have factored in the W/L record that much anyway.

 

We should still be better this year, but we're definitely still more "old look" than "new look" Twins.

[tobi0040]

Giving up 50 less runs is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. OTOH, if you are going to use runs scored to project more wins (i.e., pythag), you should acknowledge they over achieved their pythag last year.....

 

 

I think they'll win a few more games than last year, the pitching was so bad last year than a marginal improvement just puts in them in the bottom 5-10, not the bottom of the league. The real question for me this year is about youth. Will this team finally commit to youth and learning what these prospects have or don't, or will we see old guys with no future trotted out there instead? To me, the issue is about their commitment to their own stated strategy, building through the minors. Kubel, Suzuki, Pelfrey, Willingham....those names don't make you think they are committed to their own strategy at all. Add in Tonkin sitting in AAA, and maybe Arcia going back down, and you wonder.....what exactly is their strategy?

 

 

In reality I think it will be closer to 80-90 runs.

 

Unfortunately, I have to question the strategy as well. I am excited about Pinto, Hicks, Meyer, etc. But you can rattle off 10 names of guys that aren't part of the 2015 team. This is year 3-4 of a rebuilding team, so you wonder why more of an investment was not made 2-3 years ago in free agents, international signings of guys in the mold of Puig, etc. The DH battle should not be between Kubel/Parmelee/CC and SS battle between Florimon/Bartlett/Escobar.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't see much @ AAA for hitting so the current guys like Arcia, Pinto, Hicks are going to have to come thru for the offense to be even average. I don't know who is capable of leading off & we have about 4 guys who should be batting 9th.

 

I think this is an important point. Last year when there were struggles/injuries we called up Arcia and slid Doumit around. This year it's what? Hermann and Bernier and Wilkin Ramirez? Look at AAA and tell me there is ANY injury which can be substituted with even a semi-competent replacement.

 

It won't take this silly disaster talk for this offense to be in a lot more trouble than it already is. Any injury and you just put 5 number 9 hitters in the lineup rather than 4. Two injuries and you bring it to 6. This is a team with a putrid lineup and putrid depth behind it and that could derail things in a hurry with even a modicum of injury issues.

 

I think you are overstating last years team luck. The were 3 games above their Pythagoreon W-L, not 5.

 

ESPN had them at 61-101 though I see Bref has them at 3. So fair enough..it's in that range. Looking at the details makes me believe even more the bullpen is largely to credit for that "luck". The team was 24-25 in 1-run games and 9-7 in extra inning games - both far higher percentages than their overall W/L.

 

I think, moreso than the lineup or the rotation, the bullpen is going to have the largest impact on whether this team is a 70ish win team or a 60ish win team. I don't buy for a second that less of a workload is going to make them better - they had a helluva workload last year and were brilliant. So let's do away with colloquialism...better starters pitching more innings doesn't impact the performance of the relievers. If the bullpen had been bad last year and you wanted to cite overwork....maybe. Even then these are different things.

 

Now you could argue that every bullpen guy last year outperformed realistic expectations apart from maybe Duensing, but even he was alright. The key is what kinds of arms are Theilbar, Fien, Burton, Swarzak, Pressley, and even Perkins to an extent. Those guys were all anywhere from good to brilliant, but bullpen performance is easily the hardest thing to predict year to year. In my eyes, their ability to bring us "luck" is the most telling thing. Most of us can agree the rotation will show some improvement (how much is a very big question mark IMO) and the lineup is likely as bad or slightly worse than last year. This is really the lynchpin of the discussion - can the bullpen salvage enough close games for us to boost the W/L total.

 

I honestly don't know the answer to that and I think it would be wild guessing either way. But to the Twins credit they often generate this sort of luck with their bullpens, so maybe they will.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think, moreso than the lineup or the rotation, the bullpen is going to have the largest impact on whether this team is a 70ish win team or a 60ish win team. I don't buy for a second that less of a workload is going to make them better - they had a helluva workload last year and were brilliant. So let's do away with colloquialism...better starters pitching more innings doesn't impact the performance of the relievers. If the bullpen had been bad last year and you wanted to cite overwork....maybe. Even then these are different things.

 

I agree that the bullpen won't be better through a smaller workload but it *should* be easier to manage at a decent level of performance. It's easier to piece together 3-4 good relievers out of a crop of 6-7 guys than be in a situation where all 6-7 guys are needed on a regular basis.

 

For example, Burton crashes and burns. Slide Tonkin in his place as the setup man. That makes the manager's life a lot easier if Tonkin is in the minors and isn't already slated to pitch 60+ innings in the sixth and seventh innings because starters are lasting an average of 5 innings a start.

 

I don't see the bullpen getting better but I see Nolasco, Hughes, and Pelfrey helping to make sure the best guys get used in later innings instead of constantly scrambling to throw warm bodies on the mound for 4+ innings a night.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't see the bullpen getting better but I see Nolasco, Hughes, and Pelfrey helping to make sure the best guys get used in later innings instead of constantly scrambling to throw warm bodies on the mound for 4+ innings a night.

 

Very true, but the tricky part with bullpens is sometimes the guy you think is going to be one of your "best guys" ends up being a total dud. And a guy like Swarzak (an afterthought) is a borderline team MVP...sad as that may be.

 

The benefit the Twins have there is a lot of depth in case guys do flop, so that does help.

[bird]

Levi, I guess I'm not buying the notion of an over-worked bullpen resulting in reduced performance being a colloquialism. What I saw last year was long, oppressive stretches where not a single starter gave the pen a day off, and you had the same relievers warming up and coming in night after night. The pitchers themselves were occasionally commenting on coming into games with tired arms. I think an argument can be made that the bullpen was very ngood last year and would have performed even better had Andy been in a position to more effectively manage their workloads with days off and in some cases fewer innings.

[bird]

But I agree with you that the performance of the bullpen may be the single most important determinant in whether we have a 60ish win or 70ish win team in 2013, and part of my own optimism stems from a belief that we have enough bullpen depth to overcome the inevitable breakdowns.

[golfboy1]

=

TheLeviathan;206353]I think this is an important point. Last year when there were struggles/injuries we called up Arcia and slid Doumit around. This year it's what? Hermann and Bernier and Wilkin Ramirez? Look at AAA and tell me there is ANY injury which can be substituted with even a semi-competent replacement

.

 

The only guy at AAA who might make a difference is Santana & maybe Rosario later but otherwise it's pretty barren.

 

My counter argument is... they can't get much worse than last year. They gave a lot of AB to Hicks, Thomas, Florimon, an injured Willingham & several other ineffective players. If Willingham is healthy I think he will do much better & Hicks & Florimon (to a lesser extent) had better improve or they are running out of chances.

 

 

I think, moreso than the lineup or the rotation, the bullpen is going to have the largest impact on whether this team is a 70ish win team or a 60ish win team. I don't buy for a second that less of a workload is going to make them better - they had a helluva workload last year and were brilliant. So let's do away with colloquialism...better starters pitching more innings doesn't impact the performance of the relievers. If the bullpen had been bad last year and you wanted to cite overwork....maybe. Even then these are different things.

 

The bullpen might not be better but there were a lot of games when Worley, Hendriks, Diamond, etc, put the Twins in a 5 run hole after several innings. I fully expect the Twins to be competitive in the early innings far more times this year. The are still going to lose plenty of games since their pitching is still only going to be average & the offense will suck but it should be better than last year.

[TheLeviathan]

Levi, I guess I'm not buying the notion of an over-worked bullpen resulting in reduced performance being a colloquialism.

 

I'm unconvinced that group could have been better with less innings. The bulk of those mop-up innings were pitched by guys that performed very, very well. I do agree that one could argue SP improvements would help after a year in which a bullpen performed very poorly and many guys were asked to perform in roles they are unaccustomed to...but that's not what we're talking about here.

 

We overtaxed our middle and long relief and they performed incredibly. So I'm not sure that line of reasoning works for this team.

 

Now the SP improvements may allow the Twins to better tailor their bullpen usage, but there is still a high (IMO) risk that the bullpen takes a step backward. The reasoning is simply the degree to which the entire bullpen overperformed expectations and career norms. Could this group be establishing a new norm? Very possible, but hard to say.

 

Either way, with an offense not looking to put up flashy numbers, those one run games are going to be huge difference makers to our record.

[TheLeviathan]

=.My counter argument is... they can't get much worse than last year. They gave a lot of AB to Hicks, Thomas, Florimon, an injured Willingham & several other ineffective players. If Willingham is healthy I think he will do much better & Hicks & Florimon (to a lesser extent) had better improve or they are running out of chances.

 

1) I think it would be hard for Hicks not to improve on last year, but he's a wildcard that's hard to predict other than he should be better by some degree 2)Willingham's health is always going to be dubious now because the guy is clearly broken down and we may be looking at Presley as his replacement when he goes down. 3) We're still giving Florimon at-bats

 

Imagine any scenario in which a starting infielder goes down for a month - that's 30 games of Escobar replacing that player. Any OF goes down and you're likely looking at Wilkin Ramirez or Presley or Hermann. You don't even have to imagine Mauer gets hurt to start cringing at this lineup's depth.

[Otto von Ballpark]

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

 

A systematic contract year boost has been proven to be mostly fiction, right? Plus, how did Correia do in his previous two "contract years"?

 

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

 

Your projections: +109 IP, -1.00 ERA, +7.4 fWAR

Royals SP, 2012 to 2013: +97 IP, -1.14 ERA, +4 fWAR

 

The 2013 Royals SP turnaround was one of the most dramatic in recent memory, featuring the addition of TWO near-peak performances by two of the most durable SP in the game today (Shields and Santana), PLUS a full season from Guthrie, and also a great half-season renaissance from Bruce Chen too.

 

You expect the 2014 Twins to basically match that IP/ERA improvement, and double the fWAR improvement? And that's not a rosy, best case forecast?

 

Also, you have 6 starters making 20+ starts, with a 4.50 or less ERA. Since 1985, only the 2012 Phillies (another pretty good starting staff) had 6 20+ GS starters with ERAs even under 5. The Twins franchise has never had 6 20+ GS starters in a season, period. Furthermore, you project every single one of those starters to beat his career ERA in 2014. (Although admittedly some are probably closer by ERA+, given league-wide trends in scoring.)

 

While individual best cases may be even better than the numbers you posted, calling this anything other than a best case scenario from a team perspective is highly misleading, and it's not terribly different from similar exercises performed before the 2013 season (5 out of 7 names are even the same!). A far more likely team outcome includes more starts missed to injury, and at least one or two SP whose performance falters (or in the case of Pelfrey/Hughes/Gibson, fails to rebound).

 

Still should be better than 2012-2013, largely thanks to Nolasco's stability and perhaps Meyer's upside, but probably not +8 wins better as a mean projection. Not saying +8 isn't possible, but it's the team best-case scenario, no matter how you divvy up the individual performances.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It won't take this silly disaster talk for this offense to be in a lot more trouble than it already is. Any injury and you just put 5 number 9 hitters in the lineup rather than 4. Two injuries and you bring it to 6. This is a team with a putrid lineup and putrid depth behind it and that could derail things in a hurry with even a modicum of injury issues.

 

Not true! There is 4 in 9 odds that the injury would affect one of our current number 9 hitters, in which case the quantity of number 9 hitters stays constant with his replacement.

 

It's one of the benefits of having so many number 9 hitters in your lineup!

[ashbury]

that's 30 games of Escobar replacing that player.

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

the bullpen is going to have the largest impact on whether this team is a 70ish win team or a 60ish win team.

 

You're looking for 10ish WAR from the bullpen? That seems largish.

 

It's one of the benefits of having so many number 9 hitters in your lineup!

 

Hey, I just thought of a swell strategy to make the team invulnerable to the injury bug!