arby58

Pagan was when it sunk in? OK, you lost me there. He was a relief pitcher who most people would have traded for a bag of balls after 2022. He was good in 2023, but the money the Reds played for him? The Twins have done well finding guys like Thielbar and Stewart - reclamation projects - that don't carry nearly the risk, salary-wise of Pagan.

If so, what was so 'special' for Sonny about St. Louis? They were a last place team in 2023, 20 games under .500. They have added two starting pitchers with ERAs near or above 5.00 (Gibson and Lynn) and nothing else, really, other than Gray. Their MVP last year (Goldschmidt) is 36. Why would that look more 'special' to him? The answer, of course, is $75m/3. The Twins weren't going to give him that - it had nothing to do with where the team is going. I'd make a straight up bet right now that the Cardinals have a worse record than the Twins next year.

Nobody says payroll 'has zero impact on the quality of the team on the field.' Of course it does - but it is far from the only factor. I've explained how teams with young star players can do very well with a limited payroll (that was the Diamondbacks and to some extent the Twins last year). To suggest, however, that if you don't increase your payroll you cannot be a winning and competing team - that's also not true. It's all about smart spending. There are plenty of examples, recent and past, of teams overpaying for players based on past results, and then when they regress - well, you know. The thing I dislike about your comment is this 'endless mediocrity' claim - which I guess depends on your definition of mediocrity. The Twins have won their share of division titles, and this year they won a play-off series and were very competitive with the ultimately World Series winner. Funny thing - the pitcher who let them down against Houston was Sonny Gray, who lots of people think they should have shelled out big bucks to secure. The other thing is this 'conscious decision to go backwards.' Nobody in their job does that. You really think Falvey and the rest of the crew are consciously working to fail? If so, you're unlike any other private sector person I ever worked with - it sort of effects your way of making a living, right? Living within a budget and doing the best you can - yeah, I get that, I have lived that as a budget director for a $16 billion operation. Sometimes we had to cut budgets - we never went into that process expecting to fail. I doubt the Twins do either.

Whatever. Look, I did revenue projections for a couple decades using ARIMA models. I understand the utility (and lack thereof) of regression models. They are not the be-all and end-all to these discussions. If they were, well, you know, the World Series would always have a top (pick a number) team payroll-wise, and that number would never include 21 (i.e., the Diamondbacks). There will ALWAYS be outliers, especially in baseball, the way it limits salaries for players in their early years who may very well be the best players in the game.

Regression analysis describes linear relationships and is susceptible to outliers - like last year's Padres, Mets, and Yankees, and, on the other end of the spectrum, last year's Diamondbacks. Wailing and gnashing of teeth over a budget cut and 'proving' it means the Twins can't win is sophistic, even when backed with regression 'evidence.'

I read the whole study - the line of reasoning you seem to favor is the Twins should go out and make a splash with big free agent signings, and the part I quoted to you says that is not necessarily the case. This 'the Twins don't really want to compete' is backed by what evidence exactly? Given the division titles they have won, they want to compete, but they have a budget to do so. As a former budget director of a $16 billion operation, I can tell you that is the way the real world works. Funny, I looked at the metrics of organizations that spent more all the time and didn't hit the industry benchmarks for performance and outcomes - but they spent more. Regression analysis is not the Holy Grail - it is, after all, based on the past with the expectation that similar results will occur - only they don't always (hence the Mets, Padres, and Yankees from last year). The Twins have a nice core of young players that will not cost much for several years. They can also unload some veterans who will probably not out-perform that young core. Cutting payroll this year, in this set of circumstances, is not a 'they don't want to compete' conclusion.

Some growth will be tied to arbitration, some contraction can be tied to the baseball way of rookies and pre-arbitration players not getting much in ways of increases. Every team is different. Arizona can be good with its existing salary structure because they have so many good young players. The Twins benefit if Lewis, Julien, and Wallner take the salary places of, say, Polanco, Farmer, and Gallo. Just by those moves alone you about cut what the Twins say they want to cut to reduce payroll - and you can even replace last year's salary for Gray, for example. The 'you can't cut and win' mantra is shallow.

That's a pretty lop-sided point of comparison - on a standard deviation basis, there is a huge disparity between the very top and very bottom. We're not talking about the Twins entering into the very bottom zone, even with the cuts foreseen. The point is you don't have to be number 1, 2, 3 - or even 4, 5, 6 - to win the World Series.

I quoted directly from the Harvard study: "In practice, there is essentially 0 correlation between relative salary and HHI (correlation = positive 0.008). This means that holding budget constraints constant, teams with lower HHIs tend to have higher winning percentages. Holding relative salary constant, a team may be able to increase their winning percentage by 0.018 points (i.e., the difference between a 0.500 and 0.518 team) by decreasing their HHI by one standard deviation. Thus, teams on a budget might want to sit out of the bidding war for top free agents that has occurred in the 2022 offseason, and instead focus on signing some good lesser known names." So now the standard is 'in contention' not makes the play-offs? Set the parameters for that - my guess is 20-ish teams would meet that standard. You know who weren't in contention? Numbers 1, 2, and 3.

I was using your numbers - you didn't list #5 as making the play-offs. There are 12 teams in the play-offs. That means 6 teams that were not in the top 10 were in, including number 21. Did you actually read the Harvard study? It suggests this 'spend big on a few free agents' mantra, which you seem to encourage, isn't statistically significant in terms of actual results. Better to be smart than just spend big. Ask the Padres and Mets fans about that.

Agree - it's not how much money you spend, it's whether you spend it wisely. Gray, when they traded for him, was wise spending. Last year, Farmer and Solano were wise spending - Gallo was worth a flyer and had his moments. I highly doubt Pagan is worth what the Reds spent for him - look at what the Twins unearthed with Stewart last year. I sort of feel the same about Maeda. My guess is they will trade for a 4-5 pitcher who is younger and has less risk. We shall see. That said, the track record with high priced starting pitchers is not great. This front office seems to get that, even if some fans don't.

I'll take that bet.

So, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 were not in the play-offs - half of the 'top ten' and four of the top five - and you're telling me I live in anecdotal evidence?

This canard that the Twins don't trust starting pitchers to pitch further into games has GOT to be put to rest. They were 3rd in all of MLB in average length of starts in 2023. It has nothing to do with analytics, it has to do with having good enough starting pitchers to let them pitch. They didn't have them in 2022, and the starts were short. They had them in 2023, and the starts were on average longer than all but 2 other teams of the 30 in MLB.

Please provide the quote where the Twins are 'planning to be worse.' You don't like them cutting payroll, fine - but you're falling into the same old same old trap if you think just spending more money will yield more success. The top three salaried teams in baseball last year all missed the play-offs, and none of them even had a sniff of them.

It's not nearly as simple (things rarely are) as this 'higher payroll directly correlates to on-field success' claim. First, you like to 'thumbs down' the FACT that the top three payrolls in MLB all missed the play-offs last year, and the FACT that the team with the 21st/30 payroll was in the World Series. I've never understood how a person disagrees with clear facts. These clear facts from 2022 suggest that the 'direct correlation' is only by using a long-run regression analysis - and, in the immortal words of JM Keynes, 'in the long run we're all dead.' The point is that higher payroll teams don't always make the play-offs, and emerging, low-payroll teams can and do. If you delve into the paper from the Harvard Sports Collective, there was a fascinating discussion about payroll concentration (where they use the Herfindahl Hirschman index, or HHI) to measure spending a lot on a handful of players. Interestingly, they find no statistically significant correlation between those high impact player purchases and positive outcomes (and think back to some of those, and tell me how the Mets did with their starting pitching purchases, or the Angels when they signed Albert Pujols, or lots of other big splash signings). The conclusion they reach is that "In practice, there is essentially 0 correlation between relative salary and HHI (correlation = positive 0.008). This means that holding budget constraints constant, teams with lower HHIs tend to have higher winning percentages. Holding relative salary constant, a team may be able to increase their winning percentage by 0.018 points (i.e., the difference between a 0.500 and 0.518 team) by decreasing their HHI by one standard deviation. Thus, teams on a budget might want to sit out of the bidding war for top free agents that has occurred in the 2022 offseason, and instead focus on signing some good lesser known names."

Players talk all the time, and they certainly have the right to change their minds, That said, I wouldn't put much stock in the comment you refer to - unless you believe he was flat out 'untruth-telling' here (Sports Illustrated): “I do truly believe there is something special going on in this clubhouse," Gray said. "It’s definitely going in the right direction. But at the same time, it’s something we’re going to have to take a look at as a family and see what is the next step for us, not only as a baseball player, but where are the next three to four years of our lives going and what direction is that going to go in. I do know it’s going to be playing baseball, I just don’t know exactly where. But we’ve enjoyed every single moment that we’ve had since we got traded over here, not only the people in the clubhouse, the fans, the city, the organization — everyone has been as much as you can ask. It’s been an incredible experience.”

Also fair points. I do recall that Correa had something of a breakthrough (literally) with his plantar fasciitis late last season, so perhaps that is a portent of things to come.

That's usually the way projections work - the most recent data point is generally most relevant. Why would you look at 2022? Only two current relief pitchers (Duran and Jax) were a part of that bullpen - no Thielbar, Stewart, Funderburk, etc. - guys who will be relevant for 2023. Who cares how Cano, Cotton, Duffey, Fulmer, Lopez, Megill did? 2021 is even more remote. When you're riding a dead horse,, dismount.

The main point is that you said the Twins bullpen 'will be crappy. Again.' Except it wasn't.

Last year's bullpen ERA was 15th of 30 teams. Unless your definition of crappy is a team in the middle of MLB, that wasn't the Twins. OK, there are other measures, to be sure. They were 7/30 in WHIP, which is probably a better statistic than ERA anyway.

First, the response was to a comment that said the Twins had Lewis and Lee cued up to play - and that was not true. Second, the Twins made the play-offs (and Correa was arguably their best position player in them), so it certainly wasn't a 'mistake' last year - it's possible the Twins don't beat Toronto if Correa wasn't playing shortstop for them. If Correa returns to form next year, it certainly won't be a mistake. The planter fasciitis that plagued him last year wasn't even remotely related to the past ankle injury concern expressed by the two other teams (neither of whom made the play-offs, BTW). I don't know anything about Correa as a person - my analysis is based on the Twins results last year, and his career to date. The guy has put up 40.9 WAR in the equivalent of about 8 years in MLB, he's won a Gold Glove, been a three-time All Star, Rookie of the Year, and will be entering his age 30 season. To claim the signing was a 'mistake' based on one sub-par year strikes me as based on entirely insufficient evidence.

Last year, Lewis was not 'cued up' to play shortstop - they didn't reinstate him from the IL until May 29. Lee was at AA until August. The 20-20 hindsight on the Correa deal is not really fair - and also overlooks he had a very good postseason. There is plenty of reason to think the issue last year was plantar fasciitis, and he will return to his previous norm in 2024.

I doubt that would be the consensus of those 'in the know' in MLB. Baseball America polled managers, scouts, and executives, and Lopez was voted the second best change-up of American League pitchers (they also voted Duran the best fastball and third best curve). It's also hard to argue that 2-0 in the postseason, with 12.2 IP and a 0.71 ERA against the Blue Jays and Astros is not the line of an Ace. For that matter, 234 Ks in 194 innings pitched in the regular season and an 11-8 record. Maybe you meant a different Lopez?

As a Twins fan, my thought is it's a little early in the off-season to be deflated. This front office has generally shown patience in its moves - and last year's example suggests it's too early to make projections on moves that might be made. Last offseason, Correa was signed on 1/11/23, Lopez was acquired via trade on 1/20/23, Michael Taylor was acquired on 1/23/23, and Solano signed on 2/23/23.