Jump to content
It's Joe Ryan night! Come join our game thread! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Woof Bronzer

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,082

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Woof Bronzer

  1. Woof Bronzer
    Isn't this exactly what Suzuki signed up for with the Angels? Just speculating but it's not like other teams were knocking down the door of a guy who spent the last 5 years losing 60% of his games. There's only 30 MLB manager jobs on earth and I'm guessing a lot of guys would agree to just about anything to get one.
  2. Woof Bronzer
    The grievance is strong with you! Instead of whining about TD why don't you pony up and buy it? YOUR likes and dislikes don't really matter. Just an observation.
  3. Woof Bronzer
    Yeah that's the point. Since Falvey's candidate pool was literally every human on earth, the odds that the "best candidate" would be someone Falvey already knows very well must have been like one in a billion!
  4. Woof Bronzer
    Remember when Falvey said he wasn't looking for any specific qualities in the next manager, because he didn't want to shrink the candidate pool? It's absolutely astounding, that by casting this enormous net they just happened to nab the guy who was the runner up 7 years ago. The odds of that happening must be astronomical!
  5. Woof Bronzer
    I mean, wasn't Shelton literally the runner up to Rocco in 2018? You can't get more "Rocco 2.0" than that.
  6. Woof Bronzer
    I'd prioritize pitching over offense, but otherwise agree. Outhitting your opponent has a much stronger correlation to winning this postseason than outhomering them. Which says that the ability to score runs in a variety of ways is more important than the ability to hit home runs.
  7. Woof Bronzer
    Well the good news is the Twins aren't a small market team, and a team from a similar sized market (Arizona) made the WS two years ago.
  8. Woof Bronzer
    I'll suggest that maybe evaluating a player is more complex than citing a single statistic of your choice and dropping the mic. And I think it's an interesting choice to cite this statistic when Wallner has never played anything near a complete season, much less a long career like the other 3. For reference: Allison 5921 PA, Hrbek 7137 PA, Oliva 6879, Wallner 972. Lol. Games With Sabermetrics are fun...
  9. Woof Bronzer
    Your data averaged over the years shows there's approximately 1/2 fewer hits per game in the playoffs (or about 8% decrease) and the same HR per game (0% decrease). Based on this I think you are drastically overstating the difference between playoffs and regular season. But obviously no fact or data is going to change your opinion. Just remember, the next time you hear someone say "teams who outhomer the other team this postseason are 21-4" you can say "sure but teams who outhit the other team this postseason are actually 36-2". The more you know!
  10. Woof Bronzer
    The 50-game playoff season is too small of a sample size to glean anything meaningful from. It's a crapshoot. I find it very interesting that 50 games is a SSS when it comes to evaluating players but somehow it's a perfectly valid sample size when evaluating the playoffs. You keep saying HRs win in the postseason but you don't seem to have any statistically relevant data to support it. For example, on the data set I posted out hitting the other team has a greater correlation than out homering the other team. Looking at this years playoffs, the team who gets more hits than the other team won 36 of 38 times, which is a much higher correlation than HR differential. Interesting, no? I'll wait for you to dismiss this somehow...but if you want an "undeniable fact" it's that outhitting the opponent has had much more impact in winning 2025 games than outhomering the other team. Sorry if that is upsetting. Home runs help you win games. Many, many other things do too.
  11. Woof Bronzer
    And thank goodness for that! If baseball could be reduced to one or 2 factors it would be a very boring game. And also, the walk and single before the home run had a lot to do with the win as well! If Springer hits a solo shot the Jays are likely golfing today.
  12. Woof Bronzer
    I keep hearing things like this, yet I cannot find a study to support it. (Maybe it exists and I am just not finding it.) I am not doubting that hitting more homers gives you a better chance to win, but I am skeptical that this is the #1 correlation with winning in the playoffs, because there are hundreds of other factors that go into winning, and you'd need to evaluate many different correlations to determine if power is really the deciding factor. Also, playoffs are small sample sizes so I'm skeptical they can be relied on for any meaningful trend data. What I did find was a regular season study from 2015-2023 finding the stats that best correlate to winning percentage. The data is fascinating - see below. (Couldn't find the raw data so I have to assume it's accurate.) And obviously this is season long data vs. individual games. But I think it's very interesting. One thing that is clear from the data is pitching has much stronger correlation to winning than batting in general. So I'd say pitching is more important than HRs and would lead me to believe if we are focused on playoff success we should be focused on pitching over HRs. (For what it's worth, HR differential does give you a better chance to win but it's 28th on the list. ) I know most people will just dismiss this data as it doesn't tell them what they want to hear. One thing that stuck out to me is that batting Ks don't correlate great but pitcher Ks do. I've said for years that it makes no sense for Ks to be good for pitchers and irrelevant for hitters...but the data would suggest that's absolutely the case. I was wrong. The data set is kinda blowing my mind to be honest...causing me to rethink a lot of what I thought I knew about the game. Anyway, thought I'd share.
  13. Woof Bronzer
    Yeah we're on the same page. I'm saying don't build a lineup with no investment in power; but also don't build a lineup by only investing in power. And that mid market teams in the era of extreme payroll inequality can't afford to build a successful power-only team anyway (and even if they could, the Yankees and Dodgers and others will almost always do it better). I think even Falvey has realized this by now. Better in my opinion to identify some "cheap" competitive advantages, get to the playoffs, and hope your team gets hot in the crapshoot that is October. I used to loathe the 2000s Twins for doing this but with expanded playoffs, extreme payroll disparities, and self-imposed payroll constraints, it's not an unreasonable approach.
  14. Woof Bronzer
    That piece supports my argument, thank you! You cannot say "the playoffs are a crapshoot" and "the only way to win in the playoffs is to outslug your opponent" at the same time - those 2 things are in direct conflict with each other. You can have one or the other, not both. The point which I'm obviously struggling to communicate clearly is that, if the playoffs are a crapshoot and you are a middle market team your best bet is to field a well rounded team, focusing more on "cheap" skills like defense, bullpen, and fundamentals, while strategically investing in a couple of the more expensive power bats, and hope that your team gets hot at the right time.
  15. Woof Bronzer
    You got 2 of the 5 games, or 40%, wrong. Pretty significant! I find it interesting that you shared your statistic without actually looking it up. Seems like you're operating on assumptions because you want them to be true, rather than whether they are actually true. Please share these studies. I tried and cannot find a single study that shows that the one and only metric for determining playoff success is the quantity of home runs and that things like pitching, home field advantage, defense, timely hitting, etc have no impact in winning playoff games. The fact that more homers makes you more likely to win is true in every baseball game ever and is not special to the playoffs. And again, I've shown the data that the best regular season HR hitting teams do not win in the playoffs. Building a team solely focused on power does not translate to success, as Falvey era Twins fans know full well. Each playoff year is a small sample size so meaningful trend data cannot be gleaned from it - this is the "playoffs are a crapshoot" theory. Again it's interesting when saber guys just totally ignore SSS when it suits their argument. Hitting home runs helps you win; building teams that can hit HRs and do nothing else well does not.
  16. Woof Bronzer
    Outhomering the other team definitely gives you a better chance to win - no dispute there. What I'm saying is that this is not special to the playoffs - this is true for every baseball game that is ever played. And this does not mean that teams should construct their teams to solely hit home runs, because the data is very clear that teams who are extreme HR-focused teams do not correlate to playoff success. You touch on this in your post - a non HR hitting team can simply get hot and turn into the 27 Yankees for a couple weeks. And I think there are many, many things that go into winning a baseball game, things that are magnified in the playoffs, and it's a foolish to just to tally up the homers and reduce it to that. Correlation does not equal causation. I bet the data shows that says teams who outhit the other team, or whose starter goes more than 7 innings, also have a higher likelihood of winning. So yes. homers help you win in the playoffs, like any other game. I just don't think there's anything meaningful to be gleaned from that in terms of roster construction, other than that if you want to seriously contend for a Series you should build a well rounded team who can win games by outslugging teams in addition to outhitting, outpitching, out-defending, etc.
  17. Woof Bronzer
    The Yankees had more hits, less errors, higher BA, higher OPS, more RBI that series. They had more singles and more doubles. Their starters went longer and gave up fewer runs. Their relievers gave up far fewer runs and lower WHIP. The Yankees had home field advantage, and the Twins started Randy Dobnak in Game 2. The Twins actually outhomered the Yankees in Game 1 loss, and the Yankees hit a whopping total of 1 more homer than the Twins in the series. 4 of the Yankees homers were solo and they got 8 of their 23 runs in the series via homer. It's frankly bizarre to use this series as "see, it's only homers" - you'd have a much better case to make to show that actually homers are NOT the only reason playoff games are won.
  18. Woof Bronzer
    This is actually extremely false! The Cubs outhomered the Brewers in Game 1 (Brewers won) and neither team homered in Game 3. I know people love the simple answers - it's all about homers! - but those pesky facts keep getting in the way...
  19. Woof Bronzer
    Good post, but I think it's more complicated. I've never found the "team who outhomers the other wins" argument to be meaningful, sort of like a football fan saying the team who scores more touchdowns than the other team usually wins. (Duh.) The argument is one step short of basically saying whichever team scores more tends to win. This isn't particularly meaningful data to me. It's also interesting that suddenly small sample sizes like one half of a playoff season are somehow meaningful and valid here, which counter to sabermetric conventional wisdom. I'm also skeptical that home runs were the one and only reason each game was won. The Brewers also won all the home games vs the Cubs, and lost the away games. Was that a factor? Do pitchers play any role? The Cubs hit more homers than the Brewers this year and it didn't seem to help them in the playoffs. In fact, of the 10 highest HR hitting teams in MLB history, only 1 (2019 Astros) even made the World Series, and none won a Series. It's about more than power. Just ask the Bomba Squad. I'd say it's more about having a well rounded team that can win games in multiple ways. One of the biggest reasons the piranha Twins never won anything is because outside of Santana they had a bunch of mediocre starters. And the Bomba Squad started Randy Dobnak in a Game 2 at Yankee Stadium for goodness sake.
  20. Woof Bronzer
    Office Space - now THAT is something we can agree on!
  21. Woof Bronzer
    You keep saying people shouldn't write negative articles, because in your opinion they aren't "necessary". Not sure what other conclusion I should be jumping to. What was the point of your grievance then? What's your solution to whatever problem you are posing? Not nearly as much as you seem to worry about other people writing about things that haven't come to pass.
  22. Woof Bronzer
    Haha yes. If you believe that allowing people to think and write what they want makes the site worse, than I disagree. A site where everyone is in lockstep with the same opinions and other takes are shouted down sounds like the sh***est possible site imaginable.
  23. Woof Bronzer
    For real, is it NECESSARY to ever write an article about the Twins? This instinct to police what people think and write is very disturbing. I know that's the America we're living in, I get it, but this is a very bad look. What you think is deserving of an article might be very different than what I think. And telling people how to think and write is a recipe for disaster. TD often publishes things I don't agree with. Great. That's life. Nobody is forcing you to read the articles.
  24. Woof Bronzer
    This is a website whose entire purpose is to write articles about the Twins every day. Like, it's literally in the name: Twins DAILY.
  25. Woof Bronzer
    By this logic TD would shut down until April. If fans didn't "worry about something before it happens" we wouldn't have sports radio, ESPN, sites like Twins Daily, etc. The point is to talk about sports.
×
×
  • Create New...