Otto von Ballpark

Who are the 4? At close of play July 30, we trailed only 3 for the 2nd wild card. (The Angels have actually gone .519 since then!) Any teams, or these specific teams? I hope the FO isn't basing their decisions on abstract theoretical teams. Also, note that the Twins are up by 5 games. They didn't need the Royals and Rays to play .420 ball the last 2 months to be in the hunt this late. Both could have been right around .500 and we could have lost a couple more and we'd still only be a game out entering the final weekend.

"Recent champion", love it. They may not have Cueto, Shields, Ventura, or Davis anymore -- but we'd better give them credit for them! You are falling into the trap of selective endpoints (see my post above). The Royals were not that good as the July 30 snapshot suggested and we had ample time/opportunity left to dent the 5 game lead they built over 1 week in July. (In fact, it only took 10 days to completely erase it and put us back into a virtual tie for the wild card -- not that the FO should have predicted it would happen that immediately and quickly, but it was very possible with 2 months remaining.) And no one else had to collapse. No other contender was really even good enough on July 30 for their post-July 30 performance to count as a collapse. Tampa, Seattle, etc. continuing to hover around .500 was eminently predictable. There just weren't any dormant powerhouse teams or sleeping giants among the 2nd wild card contenders this year. If you thought the Twins could hang around .500, you basically thought they had a solid chance of hanging in the race until the final weeks.

I think that 5% was too low with that much baseball left to be played. First of all, Fangraphs projections hated us -- 3rd worst projected rest of season win percentage in the AL at that point, ahead of only the White Sox and barely the Orioles. Lower than Oakland! Lower than Detroit. We have been reading a constant drumbeat on this site about Fangraphs projections underestimating our Twins for 3 years now -- and now we want our front office agreeing with them? 538 doesn't update daily, but they had us at 9% just prior to that, and 24% just 10 days prior (before the Royals win streak). Also, outside the Twins, what either playoff odds system doesn't realize is the Royals just had a little hot streak. It is like a .250 "true talent" hitter (assuming there is such a thing for the sake or argument) -- they may have a little hitting streak to spike up to .290 at some point in a season, but they are likely to come down. The projection system says those hits are in the bank and they will hit their true talent .250 from here out, and it will buoy their overall numbers to .270 or so. And that is certainly possible. But we also know that given enough time, just like they over performed for a stretch, they will probably underperform enough for a stretch to wipe out some of gains from the "banked" hits in the final average. All of the playoff odds at the trade deadline were banking wins for the Royals that they were not terribly likely to hold on to with 1/3 of the season left to be played. Also, factual correction: there were only 2-3 teams "between" the Twins and the 2nd wild card at the close of play on July 30 depending on how you define between). Red Sox held the 1st wild card, Royals the second, then Rays, Mariners, Twins. Look at that crowd: Royals, Rays, Mariners. These are really the teams we want the Twins FO to be afraid of, with 2 months to play? No team is perfect, of course, but those 3 seemed particularly flawed and restricted. The Twins were too, but there was no reason we couldn't hang in that hunt. 1.5-2.5 game deficits behind the Mariners and Rays are darn near meaningless with 2 months to play, and even the 5 game deficit with the Royals was hardly that daunting with 7 head to head games left (and a .667 win percentage against them so far). If you want to make the case against a risky buy on July 31, I could see that, but to me, giving up Kintzler was a bit too risky of a sell. We're really kind of lucky that it won't be a big issue in the final regular season standings, but as we assemble postseason rosters, it feels like we are not quite taking as good of a shot at this thing as we should be. We're hopefully still improving in years to come, but our guys were promising enough today to at least deserve keeping their all-star closer over a #18 org prospect still in A ball.

How about just "Mitch the Trip"?

That is a very different debate than whether it was prudent to sell Kinztler as we did.

I wouldn't call that "likely." It is possible, but we are talking a #18 org prospect in A-ball, the most likely outcome is no notable MLB contribution. Versus Kintzler, who was performing at a high level in a pennant race (which is what we were in, even though we lost 4 games on the Royals the previous week). And even if Watson hits his 1.4 KATOH+ projection, which might top Kinztler's 2 month WAR, odds are it won't be as valuable (due to time and leverage).

Maybe live pitching should be worried about having not faced Sano since mid August! Perspective!

A bunch of suspect .500ish true talent teams will make that a possibility, yes. I see nothing remarkable about one of them finishing above .500 and a few 1-2 games below. Was that the "hail mary" that you think keeping Kintzler would have been a bet on? I hope this factoid didn't even cross their minds, really. The Royals and Angels are still only at 80 losses, although I would bet they finish .500 or below. Also begs questions : did it happen in the NL in that time? Did it ever happen with 6th team at 82 wins or something else barely above .500? Also, isn't this a function of the top 4 teams being very good? Giving more teams like us a chance at the 5th best record? Shouldn't that be something we want our Twins FO to pick up on in late July?

Despite the Royals hot week, these were all .500-ish teams. Basically a coin flip every game. At the close of play on July 30 (when the Twins made their decision on Kintzler), Fangraphs coin flip wild card odds gave us a 10% chance. Virtually the same as the Orioles, Angels, and Rangers, behind the Royals, Rays, and Mariners who were 22-28%. Really not sure where people are getting "historic" and "unprecedented" as ways to describe how the last 2 months unfolded. Any single team winning it was unlikely, and the Twins a bit more unlikely than a few others, but they were definitely among a group that was going to produce the 2nd wild card, and did. http://www.fangraphs.com/coolstandings.aspx?type=0&lg=wc&date=2017-07-30 And that 10% chance understated things, as they apply to the Kintzler trade decision. It was a 10% chance that we would actually seal the deal, but something higher that we'd be in the race (30%? 40%? 50%?) and playing meaningful games in September. Especially with 7 games remaining (and a .667 winning percentage against) against the leading Royals In the face of that, we gave up our "all star" closer, out of a suspect pen, from that pennant race for our now #18 prospect. And these modest odds still include the Royals hot 10 days which weren't really indicative of their true talent level. There was still plenty of baseball left to expect that could even out, it's not like the Twins opening up a 5 game lead in the last week.

Most everyone on this side of the debate has acknowledged that the Garcia trade wasn't so bad, so I don't know where you are getting that strawman. Flipping Garcia was more like standing pat, which isn't as bad as selling (Kintzler). Your last paragraph is confusing, if you aren't willing to defend the Kintzler trade, then what are we arguing about? No one is saying he's Mariano Rivera or he alone takes us to WS contention, but there was enough of a chance of us playing meaningful games in September/October that I would have rather kept Kintzler as a pen option than get Watson.

Again, this assumes we "needed" to win by 5+ games. We could have won 5 fewer games the past 2 months it still would have been a mistake to sell. Actually a bigger mistake -- if we were going to win, odds are it was going to be closer than it turned out, and the marginal benefit of Kintzler would have been more important. Also selective endpoint. How did it look 10 days earlier? The Royals win percentage is virtually identical before and after July 19. Your analysis puts an outsized expectation on the events of July 20-30. I hope the Twins brass wasn't doing that.

None of those teams were above .500 on July 30 except the Royals (+5) and Rays (+2). Why is it shocking if none of them finish at .500? It's basically the Royals and Rays falling back a bit, and everybody else performing exactly how they did before. And we didn't them to "fold" to this extent (to win the wild card by 5+ games). We only had to outperform the Royals by 5 games (with 7 head to head, after we were already 8-4 against them), the Rays by 2-3 over the finals 2 months, and hang with the others like we did over the first ~4 months. Not saying it was super likely, but it was possible enough I didn't see the need for a marginal hedge against it in trading Kintzler. And holding on to Kintzler would have hardly been a "bet on a hail mary" as you suggest, given the modest speculative return.

I don't think it was nearly that dire. We were right in the thick of it until a hot week from the Royals right before the deadline. Yeah, those games counted, but it didn't really mean the Royals were suddenly that good -- they were still a flawed team and we still had 7 head to head games left with them. Trailing by 5 with 2 months to play obviously wasn't ideal, but we were still in the race. Obviously we still got the 2nd wild card but I think it's a little early to say the Kintzler trade will have no negative effect. The bullpen could still be a factor in the postseason. As we are constructing our postseason rosters, I still wish we had Kintzler's name to write in there instead of some others.

Everyone: be careful when accepting a liquid beverage from someone named "Original Whizzinator".

And the Twins have a bunch of injured players on the 40-man roster -- Hughes, May, and O'Rourke. There is no problem adding Moya, if that is what the Twins want to do.

Is that just for season ticket holders? The public sale only mentions the ALDS (and wild card game): http://m.mlb.com/twins/tickets/postseason/index And hopefully they don't bother selling Wild Card game tickets, since we can no longer host it (5 games back of NY with 5 to play and NY holds the head to head tiebreaker advantage).

No. I'd possibly put Gee on the roster too, but not for this circumstance. I'm thinking more in case you need a long guy both early and late (i.e. extra innings). But you don't get cute with Ervin.

Will be interesting to see if Hicks can play himself back into the Yankees postseason plans. Ellsbury had been hot in his absence, but has cooled of late (1-for-16 since the Twins series). Matt Holliday has been pretty poor in the second half as well, so the DH spot could be in play. (Greg Bird would be in that conversation too, I suppose.)

In Hicks' first game off the DL. He added 3 walks (including a bases-loaded one for an RBI) and a SB. Here's the catch:

After the hurricane, it sounds like there are official doubts that the Twins will actually play in Puerto Rico next April:

That would be pretty cool. 2 days ago, Fangraphs pegged it as a 0.4-1.1% chance (Red Sox falling to the wild card). Presumably that includes the probability of losing a tiebreaker game? In any case, now that they've lost 2 in a row, and the Yankees have won 2 in a row, it's up to 4-10%. Still a 3 game deficit with 5 to play is tough. And the Blue Jays have played spoiler to the Red Sox the last 2 nights, and they play the Yankees next weekend too. It's not like the Yankees get to face the Tigers. And while the Astros trail by only 1 game now, Cleveland has the tiebreaker advantage for home field. So the Astros really have to make up 2 games on Cleveland with only 5 to play (and the last 3 for Cleveland are home vs. the White Sox, while Houston will be on the road in Boston for 4). The next two Twins vs Cleveland games might actually be the most important in this regard, to help keep the Astros playing (mildly) meaningful games as late as possible.

Maybe the report was right, but just way early.

I don't think it was a disaster, although it certainly has not ended well. He was worth 6.3 bWAR the first season, when they only won the division / wild card by 1 game. Also contributed a couple decent ALCS starts (including a game 1 victory). Second year, 2.4 bWAR in only about 2/3 of a season, again only won their division by 1 game (and only 2 games up on the wild card). He didn't crack their abbreviated postseason rotation (Scherzer/Verlander/Price) but contributed a nice relief appearance (subsequently squandered by Chamberlain/Soria). He hurt them in 2016, -1.2 bWAR and they finished 3 games out of the wild card. But 2015 and 2017, the team finished far enough out that Sanchez's poor performance didn't ultimately matter that much. I wouldn't call it a great return, obviously, but I don't think it was a disaster either.

Both of them?

The savvy veteran decision to fail at bunting and then get a base hit swinging away?