Getting To 85

caninatl04 · September 13, 2017

I think the playoff projections pretty much have it right, the Twins' WC odds are 55% or so . . . at this point they just have to play the games. One thing though - I'd think some of the theoretically 'hard' games for various teams could be misleading, to the extent that Cleveland, Houston, etc. might be setting up for the playoffs at the end of the regular season.

This is an excellent point. Fortunately, there's a good chance they'll be battling for home field advantage when they play other WC contenders.

And, if the final series matters for the Twins, they may be playing the Mud Hens rather than the Tigers.

Mike Sixel · September 13, 2017

Is there a tie breaker if teams tie for 2nd Wild Card? Or is it a coin flip?

I believe they have rules for a 4 way tie, but if it goes to five teams, they have no rules.....

Dantes929 · September 13, 2017

I believe they have rules for a 4 way tie, but if it goes to five teams, they have no rules.....

4 teams would be kind of cool. I don't want the Twins to just win the WS. I want them to also set a record for most postseason wins in one year.

yarnivek1972 · September 13, 2017

I'd agree with all of that, except for one nitpick: (whispers) I don't think the Yankees are even a half step better than the rest of the Wild Card teams. Maybe a quarter step. Bring 'em on.

Yeah, even the Twins beat them 2 of 3. For this franchise, that's like climbing Everest.

VirginSturgeon · September 13, 2017

I just have a hard time seeing a scenario that our beloved Twins don't make the playoffs. For as resilient as they have been throughout the year, I see no reason not to be confident going into these last 3 weeks. This team is playoff bound and I think we still can overtake the Yankees for the top spot. I am a betting man and I am going to be playing the ML on the Twins the rest of the season. $$$

gil4 · September 14, 2017

Baseball voodoo being what it is, expect a loss today. What is baseball voodoo, you ask? Its the unwritten tendencies, like striking out after hitting a foul ball out of the park, like a runner getting to third base with no outs should score, and like losing after a big win (16-0 qualifies).

... And where are all the guys that were calling for Molly to be fired? I'll tell you where: on the bandwagon.

Eddie Rosario stuck a pretty big pin in that voodoo doll!

I think we're resigned to the fact that he's not getting fired, but we still wish he wouldn't bunt so much.

gil4 · September 14, 2017

I just have a hard time seeing a scenario that our beloved Twins don't make the playoffs.

I've been a Vikings fan since 1970, so I can.

I also saw the 1987 Twins go on a run in October despite having pitching staff that was almost as bad as this one, so I can see scenarios going the other way, too.

spinowner · September 14, 2017

Much like the 87 and 91 squads.

Much like them offensively. Not so much on the mound.

diehardtwinsfan · September 14, 2017

yeah, the 91 squad was a very solid team. 87 not so much.

Brock Beauchamp · September 14, 2017

Much like them offensively. Not so much on the mound.

Not really. The 1987 team's pitching staff was pedestrian (99 ERA+) and not terribly different than this season (96 ERA+).

Whereas this year's offense (103 OPS+) is actually slightly better than the 1987 squad (97 OPS+).

The 1987 squad simply wasn't very good. They got lucky and hot at the right time in an era when eight wins nets you a championship.

gunnarthor · September 14, 2017

Not really. The 1987 team's pitching staff was pedestrian (99 ERA+) and not terribly different than this season (96 ERA+).

Whereas this year's offense (103 OPS+) is actually slightly better than the 1987 squad (97 OPS+).

The 1987 squad simply wasn't very good. They got lucky and hot at the right time in an era when eight wins nets you a championship.

True, but Viola (8 WAR) and Blyleven (4.5 WAR) were legit good and they had three position players - Puck, Hrbek and Gagne - around 4 WAR as well. They were 45-28 when those two pitched so the team was kind of made for short series when they could stack up the pitching.

Santana and Berrios aren't there yet.

Mike Sixel · September 14, 2017

True, but Viola (8 WAR) and Blyleven (4.5 WAR) were legit good and they had three position players - Puck, Hrbek and Gagne - around 4 WAR as well. They were 45-28 when those two pitched so the team was kind of made for short series when they could stack up the pitching.

Santana and Berrios aren't there yet.

right, that team was built for a playoff push, not a 162 game push.

I still think there should be two champions in MLB, regular season and short season, and everyone should play in the short season....

Brock Beauchamp · September 14, 2017

True, but Viola (8 WAR) and Blyleven (4.5 WAR) were legit good and they had three position players - Puck, Hrbek and Gagne - around 4 WAR as well. They were 45-28 when those two pitched so the team was kind of made for short series when they could stack up the pitching.

Santana and Berrios aren't there yet.

True, the front of the rotation was better in 1987 but the entire pitching staff was bleh in the ALCS. The Twins won through a bit of dumb luck and some really mediocre pitching. They hit their way to the WS (where the pitching staff improved a bit).

And that's my point, really. Both the 1987 and the 2017 teams match up pretty closely. A strong offense and meh pitching.

But the road to a World Series championship is a lot harder in 2017. The Twins need 12 wins to get there versus just eight in 1987.

Doomtints · September 14, 2017

The 87 Twins were good. They had power and enough pitching to win in the playoffs.

I have to say, which will be unpopular, that it's impossible to watch the 87 world series today and think they weren't juicing. They were giants compared to the Cardinals.

Anyway, Bill James was particularly interested in the 87 Twins, and he found that the Twins pitching was relatively normal for a world series winning team. The 87 Twins lacked a #3 pitcher, but the #1, #2, #4, #5 pitchers were all in line with regular season stats for other championship teams.

Jeff Reardon clearly learned how to do Blyleven's nasty curve near the end of the season and opposing teams really could not figure him out again until 1989.

Doomtints · September 14, 2017

To address the OP, the Twins can make it to 84 wins if they keep doing what they are doing. This will probably be enough to make the playoffs this year. With a bit of luck or a hot streak, they can make 85 or more.

Detroit and NY will play the Twins hard. Cleveland might too. Even still, the Twins should be able to play ~.500 against these teams, I don't see a collapse coming.

I'm not worried at all about the teams behind the Twins. The AL is not going to produce many +.500 teams this year. The two-win cushion they have now should hold.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Doomtints

kellyvance · September 14, 2017

Baseball voodoo being what it is, expect a loss today. What is baseball voodoo, you ask? Its the unwritten tendencies, like striking out after hitting a foul ball out of the park, like a runner getting to third base with no outs should score, and like losing after a big win (16-0 qualifies).
Having said that, I hope that last night's surge brings a dose of confidence to the guys and they all get hot together, like in August. If that happens, and they score 6 runs a game, they could make a run in the post season. I for one like the idea of having so many kids on the roster that are not intimidated. And where are all the guys that were calling for Molly to be fired? I'll tell you where: on the bandwagon.
Yeee hawww, this year's pennant race is fun.

Glad to see Eddie overcome the baseball voodoo.

Ex-Iowegian · September 14, 2017

85 or 83. Decent team, good team or not...

The debate was an over/under around 75 at the start of the season.

No matter what the final outcome, this 'ride' is one hell of a lot better than what we have been watching for the past 6 years (not counting '15).

It's great entertainment.

Okay... It's .500 baseball, but it's great entertainment.

gil4 · September 14, 2017

True, but Viola (8 WAR) and Blyleven (4.5 WAR) were legit good and they had three position players - Puck, Hrbek and Gagne - around 4 WAR as well. They were 45-28 when those two pitched so the team was kind of made for short series when they could stack up the pitching.

Santana and Berrios aren't there yet.

I didn't realize Viola and Blyleven were that good. My memories of that season are still in old-school stats (top of my head - 17-10/3.20, 15-11/3.70; 4 guys w/30+ HR - I'll check how I did in a minute). I haven't gone back and looked at how good they were according to the modern stats.

gil4 · September 14, 2017

I didn't realize Viola and Blyleven were that good. My memories of that season are still in old-school stats (top of my head - 17-10/3.20, 15-11/3.70; 4 guys w/30+ HR - I'll check how I did in a minute)

Not too far off - 17-10/2.90 and 15-12/4.01. And almost 4 w/30 HR. I couldn't remember if they just made it or just missed it, but Kirby had 28.

gil4 · September 14, 2017

Anyway, Bill James was particularly interested in the 87 Twins, and he found that the Twins pitching was relatively normal for a world series winning team. The 87 Twins lacked a #3 pitcher, but the #1, #2, #4, #5 pitchers were all in line with regular season stats for other championship teams.

Jeff Reardon clearly learned how to do Blyleven's nasty curve near the end of the season and opposing teams really could not figure him out again until 1989.

The 4 and 5 were in line with other championship teams? Just looking at their stats I have a hard time believing it, unless you say #3 is empty and call Straker a #4. Even then, what they really put out there for 3 and 4 was amazingly putrid:

Smithson - 20 GS, 109 IP, 5.94 ERA, 1.505 WHIP, 78 ERA+, -0.4 bWAR;

Niekro - 18 GS, 96.1 IP, 6.26 ERA, 1.661 WHIP, 74 ERA+, -1.0 WAR

Carlton - 7 GS; 6.70 ERA, 69 ERA+, 1.791 WHIP, -0.5 WAR

Portugal - 7 GS, 7.77 ERA, 60 ERA+, 1.864 WHIP, -1.0 WAR

That was interesting stuff about Reardon. I remember being underwhelmed by our big acquisition during the regular season, but he was pretty darned good in the post-season (despite blowing saves in the first two games against Detroit.)

spinowner · September 14, 2017

Not really. The 1987 team's pitching staff was pedestrian (99 ERA+) and not terribly different than this season (96 ERA+).

Whereas this year's offense (103 OPS+) is actually slightly better than the 1987 squad (97 OPS+).

The 1987 squad simply wasn't very good. They got lucky and hot at the right time in an era when eight wins nets you a championship.

The pitching staff as a whole, maybe. But 1987 had two legitimate strong starters and a legitimate strong closer. Santana is maybe as good as 1987 Blyleven but we don't have anyone as good as 1987 Viola nor as good as 1987 Reardon.

spinowner · September 14, 2017

But the road to a World Series championship is a lot harder in 2017. The Twins need 12 wins to get there versus just eight in 1987.

Beyond that, the 1987 Twins had home field advantage in both rounds of the postseason. They will have that for none of this postseason.

spinowner · September 15, 2017

I don't care to do the math but since there are a fair amount of games left with wild card hopefuls playing wild card hopefuls what would be the fewest wins possible for a team to make the WC.

I have done the math, and I update my records daily. Caveat: I did not include Toronto in my calculations and it's possible they could catch up.

Going into tonight's games, and not considering Toronto, the minimum number of wins that would qualify a team for the first wild card berth is 79. In this instance there would be 4 teams with 79 wins.

If we assume that the Yankees win the first wild card berth, the minimum number of wins that would qualify a team for the second wild card berth is 77. In this instance there would be 2 teams with 77 wins.

Doomtints · September 15, 2017

The 4 and 5 were in line with other championship teams? Just looking at their stats I have a hard time believing it, unless you say #3 is empty and call Straker a #4. Even then, what they really put out there for 3 and 4 was amazingly putrid:
Smithson - 20 GS, 109 IP, 5.94 ERA, 1.505 WHIP, 78 ERA+, -0.4 bWAR;
Niekro - 18 GS, 96.1 IP, 6.26 ERA, 1.661 WHIP, 74 ERA+, -1.0 WAR
Carlton - 7 GS; 6.70 ERA, 69 ERA+, 1.791 WHIP, -0.5 WAR
Portugal - 7 GS, 7.77 ERA, 60 ERA+, 1.864 WHIP, -1.0 WAR

That was interesting stuff about Reardon. I remember being underwhelmed by our big acquisition during the regular season, but he was pretty darned good in the post-season (despite blowing saves in the first two games against Detroit.)

You *can* buy the book with the breakdown, if you like. 1988 Baseball Abstract, pages 45-47. I bet you could find a used copy for a couple bucks.

Some highlights:

W% top 2 pitchers: .593

W% rest of team: .491

Difference: .102

Percentage of team wins from top 2: 38%

Historical difference between top 2 and rest of the staff: .106 (87 Twins were better than average!)

Historical percentage of wins from top 2: 41% (Twins had more wins from the non 1-2 than average!)

The 1908 Cubs are often considered the best team in MLB history. The difference between their top 2 and rest of the staff: .227. The difference between .102 and .227 is substantial!

James doesn't stop there, he notes that every team has a weakness and he identifies the Twins weakness as missing a #3 pitcher. He does this by throwing away all wins by 1-2 pitchers for championship teams and finding the Twins were under .500 with the rest of the starters. Although not unheard of (and the Twins were far from the worst), the difference maker then became the lack of a #3.

James concludes that the 1-2 v. the rest of the staff was "absolutely normal" for a championship team. He goes on to state that the losing team, the 87 Cards, had 5 great starters but comparatively bad 1-2 starters! The key to a championship is 2 dominant starters.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Doomtints

Dantes929 · September 15, 2017

You *can* buy the book with the breakdown, if you like. 1988 Baseball Abstract, pages 45-47. I bet you could find a used copy for a couple bucks.

Some highlights:

W% top 2 pitchers: .593
W% rest of team: .491
Difference: .102
Percentage of team wins from top 2: 38%

Historical difference between top 2 and rest of the staff: .106 (87 Twins were better than average!)
Historical percentage of wins from top 2: 41% (Twins had more wins from the non 1-2 than average!)

The 1908 Cubs are often considered the best team in MLB history. The difference between their top 2 and rest of the staff: .227. The difference between .102 and .227 is substantial!

James doesn't stop there, he notes that every team has a weakness and he identifies the Twins weakness as missing a #3 pitcher. He does this by throwing away all wins by 1-2 pitchers for championship teams and finding the Twins were under .500 with the rest of the starters. Although not unheard of (and the Twins were far from the worst), the difference maker then became the lack of a #3.

James concludes that the 1-2 v. the rest of the staff was "absolutely normal" for a championship team. He goes on to state that the losing team, the 87 Cards, had 5 great starters but comparatively bad 1-2 starters! The key to a championship is 2 dominant starters.

Blyleven was 15-12 with a 4.01 ERA. Is that dominant?

Doomtints · September 15, 2017

Blyleven was 15-12 with a 4.01 ERA. Is that dominant?

He was more dominant than the Cardinals staff which was stacked with a bunch of 11 game winners.

And yeah, 15+ wins would put a pitcher in the upper tier for wins in a season in the current era.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Doomtints

Dantes929 · September 15, 2017

He was more dominant than the Cardinals staff which was stacked with a bunch of 11 game winners.

And yeah, 15+ wins would put a pitcher in the upper tier for wins in a season in the current era.

You are basing dominance based on wins? Why not losses which would put Blyleven behind all Cards pitchers or ERA which would put him behind 3 of them? Also, Berrios has 12 wins in 23 starts to Blyleven's 15 wins in 37 starts. Obviously, Berrios is on a way better pace. Santana is already at 15 wins. Are you saying we already have two dominant starters?

Dantes929 · September 15, 2017

The pitching staff as a whole, maybe. But 1987 had two legitimate strong starters and a legitimate strong closer. Santana is maybe as good as 1987 Blyleven but we don't have anyone as good as 1987 Viola nor as good as 1987 Reardon.

Viola was awesome but what about 1987 Reardon separates him? 8-8 record and 4.48 ERA.

Otto von Ballpark · September 15, 2017

Blyleven was 15-12 with a 4.01 ERA. Is that dominant?

Remember 1987 was a high-scoring year. Blyleven's 4.01 ERA was much better than league average, good for a 115 ERA+, ranking 22nd in MLB among qualifiers. 2nd in games started, 4th in IP. The W-L looks a lot better too when you consider the team was 23-14 in Blyleven's starts, I think Bert's trademark luck was on display in that regard. He wasn't elite like Clemens or even Viola, but he was pretty darn good, and I wouldn't quibble with saying he was part of a "dominant pair" when paired with one of those guys.

spinowner · September 15, 2017

Viola was awesome but what about 1987 Reardon separates him? 8-8 record and 4.48 ERA.

He pitched much better down the stretch than in the first part of the season. And he was certainly far better at closing than Belisle is now, which was the point of my post.

Sign In

Getting To 85

Twins Video

Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

Recent Twins Articles

Recent Twins Videos

Community Blogs

Forum Topics

Twins Top Prospects

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

Featured Comments

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Do you approve of Twins ownership?