The Rays-Brewers World Series Isn't an Excuse for Twins to Spend Less Money

On 10/21/2026 at 1:04 PM, MeleMouth said:

A basic probability proof is based on a case where you and a friend are gambling over $100 split between you 51:49 and the game is otherwise fair.

If you play 20 times, the player who starts with $51 will win the $100 60% of the time.

If you play 100 times, the player who starts with $51 will win the $100 88% of the time.

If you play 100 times, the player who starts with $51 will win the $100 98% of the time.

Having more money improves the odds of victory, especially the more you play.

Baseball isn't an otherwise fair game, because being smarter can provide advantages. The Twins, unfortunately, in addition to having less money have also consistently been less smart than several other teams. Playing in a weak division that enabled them to make the playoffs a few teams sheltered their lack of smartness. But now Detroit and even the ChiSox appear to be catching onto the strategies used by CLE/TBR/MLW and others, so the challenges facing the Twins are even greater. 

Is this the Gamblers Ruin Theory? 

If so... I'm not sure you are explaining it correctly. If you are not implying that... I apologize for going on. 

The Gamblers Ruin basically says that if you play with a negative edge or equal edge long enough you will eventually go broke. 

If you have 50 dollars and you are playing against Elon Musk who puts up 1 trillion dollars. Play the game long enough and you will eventually you go broke because a bad streak will eventually wipe you out. While Elon Musk stands.   

Now if the game is not fair where there is a 51% chance of winning against 49% of winning every time The 51% chance of winning combined with the law of large numbers will have an 90.1% chance of bankrupting the guy who only wins 49% of the time. 

I'm not sure if this is where you were going or not? 

1 hour ago, rdehring said:

 

The Twins have been spending the same $x million as most teams every year 

This sentence of yours is beautiful. Not sure it it was your intent but it made me think of something that I think is somewhat applicable. In regards to spending the same X millions every year. 

A trucking company with 100 trucks will have about 70 drivers who stick around to fill 70 seats. And about 30 seats that they fill over and over and over and over again. 

Then they will tell you that there is a truck driver shortage. 

If you need to fill with job hoppers. That's the result. That's how it works. 

I simply can't express strong enough how important it is that we employ for a longer term. Develop or Die! 

24 minutes ago, MeleMouth said:

Yes, this is Gambler's Ruin. The explanation is much more detailed. The numbers come from a Harvard statistics professor.

You might want to look into it a little more. Gambler's Ruin is based on a fair game between players with different financial strength, not an unfair game where each player has the same amount of money. Your Musk example is an example of a fair game with different financial strength.

I'm not sure where you come up with "90.1% chance of going broke," because the chances of losing all your money would depend on how many games are played. If only one game is played, the chances of going broke (losing) are small, but if thousands of games are played the chances of bankruptcy are quite high, probably much higher than 90.1%.

The main point is that, in baseball, differing financial strength makes more of a difference the more games (seasons) are played, despite the real chance that in any one or few particular seasons a player with lower financial resources can win. 

I am familiar with it. Wasn't sure which way you were applying it. 

In a fair game. The odds don't change. If they are starting with equal bankroll. If the bankroll is unequal. Me against Elon Musk or Me against the Casino. Elon Musk or the Casino is going to eventually bankrupt me if I stay at the table too long. 

In an unfair game. a 51% to 49% advantage of winning for someone would result in around a 90% chance of bankrupting over a significant period of time. Obviously based on the size of the bankroll and the number of rolls or games. 

The Gamblers ruin theory while not designed for baseball is part of the reason why I'm pretty insistent that none of us can predict what will happen in the small sample of playoffs compared to the larger sample of 162 games. It's why I'd like to teams to focus on the 162 games and just get their ass in the playoffs somehow someway. 

Anyway... I was just trying to figure out your interpretation and if it was rooted in the Gamblers Ruin theorem.  

32 minutes ago, MeleMouth said:

Yes, in any one particular year, getting into the playoffs is the most important component to having a chance to win, but over time teams having a larger payroll will have both (1) more chances to make it into the playoffs, and (2) a better chance of winning the average playoff series.

I think we are on the same page. It kind of leads back to the topic of this article. 

Money gives you a better chance of reaching the playoffs. Money gets you through 162 games. The longer the game the bigger the advantage that money has. Therefore... If more teams with money makes the playoffs than teams that don't. The odds of a team with money winning the world series will reflect that.  

This year 8 out of 12 teams in the playoffs were top ten in payroll. With all things being equal (They are not equal)... the odds are 66.7% that a top ten payroll team will win the world series because 8 of them got in compared to 4. The Brewers and Rays kind of screwed all that up... didn't they.  

Small Samples... you just can't trust em. 

14 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I think we are on the same page. It kind of leads back to the topic of this article. 

Money gives you a better chance of reaching the playoffs. Money gets you through 162 games. The longer the game the bigger the advantage that money has. Therefore... If more teams with money makes the playoffs than teams that don't. The odds of a team with money winning the world series will reflect that.  

This year 8 out of 12 teams in the playoffs were top ten in payroll. With all things being equal (They are not equal)... the odds are 66.7% that a top ten payroll team will win the world series because 8 of them got in compared to 4. The Brewers and Rays kind of screwed all that up... didn't they.  

Small Samples... you just can't trust em. 

The Mets proved all things being equal, a fool and their money are soon parted.  

The spending of money in a mid market team is almost irrelevant without a cost controlled core. That is what the Twins lack  the core comes from development and trades.  Development is not possible without underlying talent. Drafting players is not luck, but there also is no certainty in it. Trades are also a science. San Diego rarely gives up the prospect that turns into a star. The Soto trade was about it. The Falvey  rarely traded his prospects,  maybe Zoll will trade Falvey’s prospects better than Falvey traded Ryan’s prospects