The Traps That the Twins Need to Avoid
It’s June 1st, and the best record in the American League belongs to the Minnesota Twins. As winners of seven of their last eight games — all against teams who expected to contend coming into the season — the Twins now stand at 30-19, a half game ahead of the Royals in the AL Central; they’re also three and a half games ahead of Detroit and six and a half ahead of Cleveland. That’s a pretty great start for a team that we gave basically no chance of contending this year, as our pre-season forecasts had them as a 74 win team, and gave them just a 3% chance of reaching the postseason.
After two months of playing .600 baseball, our projections now expect the Twins to finish with 81 wins, and give them a 27% chance of reaching the postseason. On the one hand, that’s a huge jump, and a roughly one-in-four chance of making the playoffs in what was supposed to be a rebuilding year is quite the accomplishment. On the other hand, those 27% odds still put them behind eight other teams, and those odds are buoyed by their chances of reaching the less-valuable Wild Card game; Minnesota’s estimated 12% chance of winning their division ranks just 10th in the AL.
The Twins strong start is both a blessing and a curse. Watching winning baseball is a lot more fun than losing baseball, and surprising playoff runs can invigorate a fan base, driving significant revenue gains from increased attendance and television ratings. Even just putting a watchable product on the field can help a franchise avoid a financial death spiral, and even if the Twins cool off in the second half, their strong start should help keep people interested in baseball through most of the summer.
But there’s a potential downside here too, because while the Twins front office should absolutely be enjoying their strong start to the season, they need to be realistic about what it does and does not mean. And it does not mean that the 2015 Twins are actually a good baseball team.
The Twins have a .612 winning percentage, second best in baseball, but their BaseRuns expected winning percentage is .424, sixth-worst in baseball.
BaseRuns looks at the expected run values of every play each team is involved in, and creates estimated runs scored and runs allowed totals from those events, under the assumption that teams are going to distribute those events across types of context in a normal way. The way to dramatically outperform (or underperform, in the A’s case) your BaseRuns expectation is to cluster all of your positive events together, making sure you don’t strand your own runners and do strand opposing runners, while also performing far better in high-leverage situations than when the game is already decided.
The Twins have done exactly that in the first two months of the season. With the bases empty, the Twins have a .284 wOBA, but that jumps to .333 with men on base, and .351 with men in scoring position. That kind of sequencing is why BaseRuns looks at the Twins offense and sees a team that should be scoring about 3.9 runs per game, but the Twins are actually scoring 4.6 runs per game. Likewise, the pitching staff is expected to be giving up 4.6 R/G, but is only actually at 4.2 R/G, so the Twins have outscored their opponents by 21 runs while BaseRuns expects that they should have been outscored by 34.
This is a great example of why I’m not a big fan of pythagorean expected record; often times, statistically inclined writers have used pythag to strip out the sequencing in the conversion of runs to wins, but that ignores the fact that there is an awful lot of sequencing that goes into those runs themselves, and unfortunately for teams like the Twins, there’s just no evidence that teams have the ability to consistently and sustainably beat their BaseRuns expected records; the model is very good, and teams generally fall within a pretty narrow band around their expected record.
We have BaseRuns data going back to 2002, and in the 13 full seasons that we’ve tracked BaseRuns data for, no team has ever exceeded their BaseRuns expected winning percentage by more than 70 points; the 2008 Angels had a .617 Win% versus a .544 BaseRuns Win%, which translated out to 12 wins above their expected record; the 2005 Diamondbacks and 2004 Yankees matched that total, so three times out of 390 team-seasons a team has managed to steal a dozen extra wins by stacking their events in the most optimal way possible.
The Twins are currently beating their BaseRuns winning percentage by 188 points, which translates to 30 extra wins over a 162 game season. To say that they can’t keep this up might be the understatement of the year. The reality is that the Twins are not actually playing like a very good team, and sooner than later, their record is going to reflect that. You just can’t keep winning games the way the Twins have been winning them in April and May, and they don’t appear to have enough talent to win games the old fashioned way of just being better than their opponents. Pretty soon, the Twins are likely going to go back to looking like the building-for-the-future club that everyone expected.
With the trade deadline just two months away, though, the team’s strong start will likely still have them in the midst of the playoff race when the buy/sell decisions have to be made. Even if they play just .450 ball the rest of the way, as our projections suggest, that prorates out to a 23-27 record over their next 50 games, which would leave them at 53-46 headed into the final stretch of the season. Yes, the Twins could just implode and make it clear that the team isn’t actually a contender, but that’s not what regression to the mean usually looks like, and it’s more likely that the Twins are hanging on in the middle of the Wild Card race when the trade deadline rolls around.
So Terry Ryan and his staff are going to have to do some difficult balancing. On the one hand, you don’t want to throw away an opportunity to make a postseason run when it presents itself, even if you don’t think you really have a playoff-caliber roster. After all, it was less than a year ago that I wrote a piece entitled “It’s Time for the Royals to Trade James Shields“; they ignored me and went to the World Series instead. While playing the probabilities is still an organization’s best bet, it’s not like these forecasts are set in stone, and a reasonable chance for the Twins to give their fans a special season isn’t worth throwing away.
But at the same time, this team isn’t actually all that good, and probably are going to fade out of the race by the time the season ends. The Twins don’t have enough good assets for the future to start trading them in to make upgrades to a team that probably won’t be good enough to keep up with the real contenders in the AL over the next four months, and even with the best record in the AL on June 1st, the Twins should still be prioritizing the future over the present. You don’t want to trade a guy who could have a real impact on your team in the next few years for a guy who might just help you finish this year with 82 wins instead of 81.
The Twins strong start is going to take them out of the seller’s market, but it also shouldn’t push them strongly into the buyer’s market either. If they can take some low-cost flyers on guys like Aaron Harang or Marlon Byrd, hey, okay, knock yourself out, and see what happens. It’s worth throwing a few minor chips into the pot to see if the team starts actually playing better and steals a Wild Card spot. But it’s not worth giving up significant pieces of the future to try and keep up with the big boys who are winning by actually outplaying their opponents rather than out-sequencing them.
There are ditches on both sides of this road, and the Twins front office is going to navigate away from both going too strongly and too weakly after their new-found chance at a 2015 playoff spot. Stay the course, make some minor upgrades if they don’t cost much, and maybe this turns into a great story. Just don’t get tricked into thinking that their record is reflective of the fact that this is a team that’s ready to win. Smoke and mirrors don’t last, and it’s up to the front office to realize that they’re better off building a team that doesn’t need them.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
2014 Milwaukee Brewers
Meh, the Brewers were at least a stars ‘n’ scrubs team. The Twins don’t have any outright stars to speak of.
Scrubs n’ scrubs?
In what world is Brian Dozier not a star?
Pretty miraculous they are where they are right now, but I’d be pretty excited if I were a Twins fan. They’re about a month away from getting Santana back, and then about another month from any additions they want to make at the deadline. Who knows…!
What if you’re wrong and Paul Molitor is simply a motivational genius who knows how to push the exact right buttons every single time an opportunity to jump on an opposing pitcher presents itself? That’s my theory.
better sequencing comes down to pure luck. There will always be the one outlier, the fat tail in statistics so to speak, but the author pointed out that the BEST sequencing over an entire season came out to less than 70%, the twins are at 188%. Which is not to say that the players can’t play better and yet they regress to a .500 team the rest of the way, but if they hit and pitch the way they are now it’s likely to fall apart.
How is a .284 wOBA with the bases empty “pushing the exact right buttons”?
I said “when an opportunity to jump on an opposing pitcher presents itself.” Not with the bases empty.
Your theory’s bad and you should feel bad
Maybe its the optimist in me, but I’d love to identify an explanation for our run-scoring that’s more sustainable than “clutch” hitting. A few ideas/hypothesis:
1) At some point I read that the twins were emphasizing “quality at bats”. I never saw a definition of this, but if we were to assume that it had something to do with having longer at bats and/or forcing pitchers to throw better pitches (e.g. not chasing pitches that are far out of the zone) than (a) do we know if Twins are actually having more quality at bats than other teams and (b) is it possible that the team is getting something out of these at bats even if they still lead to outs (and therefore don’t influence OBP or OPS), like a better understanding of the pitcher that can be leveraged in the right situation?
2) One thing that’s been emphasized a couple of times is that we don’t have a regular hitting above 300 — is it possible that a team with a more consistent line-up (ie less deviation amongst the avg/obp/ops of different hitters) has a higher run-scoring potential than a team with the same overall metrics, but less consistency? Or a slightly different version of this question, is it possible that where the hits are coming from in the lineup has an influence in addition to just the total number of hits?
3) Is it possible that the increase in productivity with runners on is driven not by luck, or “clutch”, but rather by an advantage the Twins have figured out how to exploit? The first thing that comes to mind is stealing signs from the catcher? Or exploiting the change in infield positioning that results from holding baserunners on?
Would be very interested in hearing if anyone has any thoughts/analysis on any of this ideas! In the meantime, lets enjoy first place while it lasts. Go Twins!!
Do we really know that sequencing HAS to come down to luck?
Maybe its the optimist in me, but I’d love to identify an explanation for our run-scoring that’s more sustainable than “clutch” hitting. A few ideas/hypothesis:
1) At some point I read that the twins were emphasizing “quality at bats”. I never saw a definition of this, but if we were to assume that it had something to do with having longer at bats and/or forcing pitchers to throw better pitches (e.g. not chasing pitches that are far out of the zone) than (a) do we know if Twins are actually having more quality at bats than other teams and (b) is it possible that the team is getting something out of these at bats even if they still lead to outs (and therefore don’t influence OBP or OPS), like a better understanding of the pitcher that can be leveraged in the right situation?
2) One thing that’s been emphasized a couple of times is that we don’t have a regular hitting above 300 — is it possible that a team with a more consistent line-up (ie less deviation amongst the avg/obp/ops of different hitters) has a higher run-scoring potential than a team with the same overall metrics, but less consistency? Or a slightly different version of this question, is it possible that where the hits are coming from in the lineup has an influence in addition to just the total number of hits?
3) Is it possible that the increase in productivity with runners on is driven not by luck, or “clutch”, but rather by an advantage the Twins have figured out how to exploit? The first thing that comes to mind is stealing signs from the catcher? Or exploiting the change in infield positioning that results from holding baserunners on?
Would be very interested in hearing if anyone has any thoughts/analysis on any of this ideas! In the meantime, lets enjoy first place while it lasts. Go Twins!!
the problem is, you’d think if quality AB’s were a thing for them, they’d be doing it all the time, and not just in the big spots.
i wonder about no. 2 in that it might make an offense more consistent game to game (unlike my Jays who are elite offensively, but also a little boom and bust). i’m not sure why that would drive the split with runners on versus bases empty though. someone should do a study looking at variance of hitter quality in a lineup versus variance in runs scored per game. I wonder if more balanced lineups might oscillate more tightly around their runs scored average, compared to stars and scrubs teams.
Amaro probably wants Buxton for Harang, and Aaron is much like the Twins anyway in terms of out-performing his expectations and peripherals. Minnesota would be better off going in the opposite direction and picking up someone currently underperforming, as the cost would presumably be much less. For instance, Kyle Lohse is basically Harang with bad luck instead of good. I can’t imagine he would require more than a very minor prospect and picking up the remainder of his contract.
Loshe and the Twins have such good memories together!
The Twins won’t be taking Lohse back. Gardy’s old Metrodome office door says so.
I wonder how much of the Twins numbers are still affected by their horrible start? They were something like -30 in run differential after the first week. After the first week of the season, the Twins hitter were 46 for 229 (.200 avg).
I can’t find a way to check team stats since mid April, but in May, the Twins wOBA was 4th in the AL and 4th in runs. They had a decent offense last year as well. I’m not sure if their offense is as bad as the season long numbers suggest at this point, because over a year, I think that first week will be the big drag and they’ll have 4 more months of solid offense to offset that (which isn’t in the stats yet).
As to baseruns, there has been some discussion on it at a few Twins cites. One point that might be worth noting is that it is changing. Two weeks ago, baseruns had the Twins at something like a .385 win%, now it’s up to .424. So maybe the Twins and the baserun difference will get closer as the season goes on wouldn’t necessarily mean that the Twins are a bottom 6 team.
Anyhow, to the main point of the article. Ryan is unlikely to make a big trade of prospects. He might get in the bidding for a guy like Kazmir or Harang but he won’t give up his main prospects to do so. He’s never done that and he won’t now that he’s close to seeing them start to help the ML club.
“I wonder how much of the Twins numbers are still affected by their horrible start?”
Exactly how much the Twins numbers should be affected by their horrible start.
“I can’t find a way to check team stats since mid April, but in May, the Twins wOBA was 4th in the AL and 4th in runs.”
May, a subset of the season, is not more indicative of the team’s abilities than the set of all events, ie the season.
“I’m not sure if their offense is as bad as the season long numbers suggest at this point”
The season-long numbers indicate precisely how bad the Twins offense is.
“because over a year, I think that first week will be the big drag and they’ll have 4 more months of solid offense to offset that (which isn’t in the stats yet).”
It isn’t in the stats yet because it hasn’t happened. You are presuming your own argument to be true
“they’ll have 4 more months of solid offense”
to validate your argument
“I’m not sure if their offense is as bad as the season long numbers suggest at this point”.
…
“Two weeks ago, baseruns had the Twins at something like a .385 win%, now it’s up to .424. So maybe the Twins and the baserun difference will get closer as the season goes on wouldn’t necessarily mean that the Twins are a bottom 6 team.”
That the Twins have improved does not mean the Twins will continuously improve. By the current measure, a measure which is likely to change but not likely to change drastically and could change either for the better or the worse, the team is not nearly good enough to sustain their record.
All politeness intended, but when I see something this almost satirically illogical up-voted nine times, it scares the living hell out of me.
I’m 100% certain that teams are capable of making a turnaround mid-season. It is certainly possible the Twins true talent level has risen since the beginning of the season.
So…it is logical and possible that the beginning does not reflect the current Twins group well (supported by the fact they had a perfectly fine offense last year, not the atrocity that began the year).
Your decision to warp the truth to your beliefs and wishes discourages the good and empowers the wicked. Maybe you do not see that your logic is wholly broken?
“I’m 100% certain that teams are capable of making a turnaround mid-season.”
100% certainty of an indefinable quality is a belief and nothing more. To even attempt logic you need definite or at least definable terms. I promise, you would not want a bridge made with such thinking.
“It is certainly possible the Twins true talent level has risen since the beginning of the season.”
And it is possible that it has dropped. What matters is facts and logical interpretation. The fact is, the Twins are not performing well–over the whole season–at the components of winning. The interpretation, provided by the model, suggests the Twins actual record will steadily regress toward those component abilities.
If the Twins true talent level has improved, the burden is on you to prove it. You have not in any way. Nor has anyone else. Because, it seems, it is not possible to prove.
“So…it is logical and possible that the beginning does not reflect the current Twins group well (supported by the fact they had a perfectly fine offense last year, not the atrocity that began the year).”
It is possible but no argument has been made to indicate it is probable or even plausible.
Mr. Cameron argued that it is improbable that the Twins will make the postseason, supported that argument, and made a logical extension from that argument: The Twins should not overestimate their chances at contention and so doing, trade aggressively to compete this year.
“All politeness intended, but when I see something this almost satirically illogical up-voted nine times, it scares the living hell out of me.”
Actually, it sounds like you’re kind of a jerk. No offense.
How so?
Ian’s circular logic is obvious and almost textbook in its application. It is not impossible that it’s satire.
And when people, including you now it would seem, truly cannot distinguish between sound reasoning and illogical rhetoric, it does indeed scare me. When people make their own truth, there is no end to the evil they can justify.
Yet you fixate on my tone. Tell me that’s not terrifying.
Dude, this is the comments section of a baseball blog.
Agree with Werthless, you’re coming across as a pretty big douchebag. I’m pretty sure you missed the point. The article suggested the Twins weren’t as good as their record, which most people agree with.
Dave’s article pointed out that no team out performs baseruns by as much as the Twins are on pace to do so, over a full season. But we aren’t over a full season and there doesn’t seem to be a way to validate base runs in season – it’s constantly changing (last year at the all-star break the A’s were on a baserun pace of over 100 victories). Most teams don’t play the same all year. They’ll have hot streaks and cold streaks. It’s likely that the Twins worst section of the year (offensively) already occurred. In a full season, a cold streak wouldn’t mean much b/c we have a full season of data. But right now, we have about a quarter of the data. So if the data includes the coldest part but not the full season of data to which dilute it, the base runs information isn’t complete enough to suggest that the Twins are as bad as the base runs implies. Most people seemed to understand that, as well.
And yes, I’m presuming another four months of baseball. Most people also presumed that and understood the expectation of what that meant. You failed pretty big on that but way to smugly miss the point. And for future reference, if you don’t want to seem like an internet troll, don’t cut sentences in half to obscure their point.
You saying that I am coming off as a pretty big douchebag is by far the most uncivil and disrespectful comment that’s been made in this entire discussion. Needless to say.
You want to omit part of the sample because it does not support your argument. That is not logical.
You did not presume four more months of baseball, you presumed “4 more months of solid offense,” which has no basis. The Twins offense has been bad this season, overall. The only supportable projection is that the Twins offense will continue to be bad, but will not benefit from the luck of sequencing.
I did not remove any part of your comment which was consequential, plus your original comment is above for anyone to read. Nothing I did was rude or abusive.
The Twins have X record. A better measure of future performance indicates that record is dependent on luck, ie sequencing, and not skill. Therefore the Twins should be wary of committing too much to this season.
“we aren’t over a full season and there doesn’t seem to be a way to validate base runs in season – it’s constantly changing (last year at the all-star break the A’s were on a baserun pace of over 100 victories).”
Of course it changes, but like FIP and ERA, one is steadier and more predicative, and one best describes the past. BaseRuns, the predicative stat, suggests the Twins are not nearly as good as their record suggests.
If the first week of the season is to be ignored or discounted, a proper explanation must be given why. Without that, the first part of the season is as valid as any other part of the season.
“Most teams don’t play the same all year. They’ll have hot streaks and cold streaks. It’s likely that the Twins worst section of the year (offensively) already occurred.”
You’re muddying the water. For one, you cannot prove that it is likely that the Twins have played their worst baseball. That is something you hope to be true, but is a guess based on no given facts. For another, even if the Twins have played their worst offensive baseball, nothing suggests that the Twins will not have four, five, six or however many weeks of production which are also very bad, if not as bad.
A hitter hitting .230, who hit .000 in the first week, is still a .230 hitter. We cannot pick and chose what part of the season matters. A hitter hitting .230 could not go to his general manager and say “I’ve hit .300 in the past eight weeks, so you should ignore my overall batting average.” The subset is not more indicative of the whole than the whole.
BaseRuns indicates the Twins are a well below average team. That some of that lousiness is concentrated in one week, does not change the fact.
“In a full season, a cold streak wouldn’t mean much b/c we have a full season of data. But right now, we have about a quarter of the data. So if the data includes the coldest part but not the full season of data to which dilute it, the base runs information isn’t complete enough to suggest that the Twins are as bad as the base runs implies.”
BaseRuns is a measure of the team’s current quality, so to speak. In a full season, a cold streak matters exactly proportional to how cold it is and how long it lasts. In-season BaseRuns is not as steady as full season BaseRuns. But in-season BaseRuns is much more steady than in-season record. Therefore, there is a compelling argument that the Twins are much inferior to their record.
The full season will no more dilute the Twins bad April than it will dilute the Twins good May. Both are roughly equal samples, and taken as a whole, both samples, as measured by BaseRuns, indicate the Twins are not good.
This, specifically, is not logical.
“[T]he base runs information isn’t complete enough to suggest that the Twins are as bad as the base runs implies.”
The BaseRuns data is not complete, but it does very much imply the Twins are not as good as their record indicates. With more data it would become more stable. But it is robust enough to suggest very strongly that the Twins are winning because of luck and not repeatable skill.
Incompleteness and therefore imperfection, the particular sequencing of the season itself and the fact that April was bad but May has been good, are not valid arguments against the model. They’re manipulations of data to support a desired result.
I actually mostly agree with Antirheteric, but the whole breaking a person’s post into segmented quotations and attacking each of them is juvenile. If you decide to make this “your thing,” my guess is that very few people will be receptive to the substance of what you have to say.
Unlike pedantry, which flies remarkably well.
If I were the Twins I would look at this differently. Trade away some guys who aren’t part of the long term plan if you can (Pelfrey? Hicks?) and free up space for guys like Berrios and Buxton. They are upgrades over what you’re playing right now anyway, and worst case scenario they’re just getting big league experience on a team on the edges of competition. Best case, they keep you in competition a little longer.
Even with his good start, I don’t think Pelfrey holds much value to other teams, and Buxton hasn’t shown anything that says he’s ready to jump over AAA and into the majors. Having said that, I would love to see Berrios get bumped up early, just to see what he can do.
Buxton started out slow but has hit .272/.347/.536 since April 20th. That includes 5 doubles, 10 triples 5 HRs and 13 SB.
I agree that he’s not ready yet, but only because he missed almost all of last year. I’d give him another month or so and see how it shakes out. He is definitely on the upswing though. If he hits the way he has in the last 35 games or so..or even better then I think we’ll be seeing him make the jump in the not so distant future.
Twins/Wolves facing the same situation – Lots of great young talent, but very little room on the roster. Not every gifted player will go on to a great career – but it’s so dangerous to trade away potential with the young guys. I’m thinking more of the veteran’s – specifically Mauer/PEK – when healthy and playing at their best, there is little to no chance of improvement, but when hurt or under performing they are very expensive investments. I would hold the line this season – neither team realistically makes a deep playoff run (or perhaps even gets there this year, but the future looks much brighter. Manager/Coaches have made a significant impact for the Twins… makes you wonder what the Woves should be doing at that level.
While as a Twins fan I can’t disagree with this article a few things worth pointing out.
1. The roster on August 1st isn’t the roster on June 1st. The Twins have the ability to shed dead weight (Stauffer, Duensing, Nothing from the DH position, and Danny Santana). A contending Twins team in August could possibly even bring in two Top 10 prospect bats in Buxton and Sano.
2. The team strength seems to be starting pitch depth as goofy as it might sound. They have potential reinforcements in Ervin Santana, Tom Milone, and Jose Berrios. A league average starter, a capable number 5 guy, and a top 25 prospect. This seems enough to give them a chance to stay in games most of the summer. It should be noted that last year’s Twins offense was seventh in the league in runs scored. So combine the improved starting depth plus offensive history leads one to believe that they might not totally fall flat.
3. The Twins won’t have this run of luck continue. They also have 11 games in the bank. If they play .500 ball (going forward), they are competing in the last week of the season for a playoff spot. This would have seemed an absurd idea in Minneapolis in March.
4. Do I think this is a playoff team? No for the reasons that Mr.Cameron gives, but randomness is often what makes life fun. Let’s go Twins!
I couldn’t agree more with your statement about randomness. As a Twins fan, I don’t expect this to last, but I’ll be damned if I haven’t enjoyed the ride! From a marketing perspective maybe this stretch really sticks in the minds of some fans and our season ticket sales get a slight boost next season. Either way, with the young talent in the pipeline, I expect the future to resemble the past couple months more than the past few years
Lol at Tommy Milone reinforcing anything.
LM(my)MFAO
He’s reinforcing AAA anyway, but this aint (purposeful ignorant word usage) no AAA up in the majors. I’d say he could reinforce with 4-4.5 ERA and keep the Twinnies in games all year. He’s adequate anyway.
He’s better than replacement level. The Twins haven’t had that in years in their rotation when 1-2 pitchers have gone down.
I would be curious if there is an effect of teams tuning out (or in) over the season based on how they performance is. I would kind of expect the Twins to over-perform and the As say to under-perform just a bit due to at least some players not being quite as invested.
I am not talking a lot here, just a win or two, but you would think being in the race in addition to encouraging roster moves that are competitively minded might always include marginally harder play from the players and buy-in from the staff?
It is crazy how many wins the Twins have given how bad they are. Yay sequencing!
You hear people inside baseball talk about that sometimes but it’d be nearly impossible to measure, right? How do we know when/if a team has checked out?
What SHOULD the Twins look like defensively next year? It has been a constant debate what to do with veterans and prospects. The debates include Plouffe or Sano at 3; Santana, Escobar, or Polanco at SS; what mix of Mauer, Arcia, Pinto, Vargas, and Sano at 1b/DH; If Buxton is in CF, who should be in the corners?
I was hoping the Twins would be able to sell high on Plouffe, but with the Twins in the race that doesn’t appear likely.
I would like to see an OF of Buxton, Hicks, and Rossario next year and focus on good defense. And have Arcia play in LF against a Lefty-heay lineup and in RF agains a Righy-heavy lineup to avoid his glove being necessarily used as often.
*This one will never happen, but I would love to see Mauer used in a Zobrist/Pearce type of role of super-utilty everyday starter. I would think his arm would play well in the corner OF. Heck, he could probably handle 2B and 3B too. This would open up 1B/DH at bats for Sano, Vargas, Arcia, and Pinto. It would also make his offense more tolerable being a flexible guy like that. Mayer could also turn around his tainted name with the home crowd by looking like the unselfish guy and as more valuable. Pipe dream, but I think it would work.
These predictions that we came up with were wrong so we should use those projections to label this an 81-win team. – Idiots
This seems like an awful lot of words when you could have just linked to the Baseruns +/- standings that show the Twins with 9 more wins than they should have expected based on the offensive and defensive production. The show will drop. Eventually. http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=BaseRuns
The above is a dumb comment. Move on, nothing to see here.
You’ll have to do better than this to be in line for a promotion!
Dunning-Kruger
Great article Dave, saying that as a twins fan and season ticket holder. Many good points have already been made above – e.g. Santana should improve the rotation in a mont with no required roster moves (other than he replaces someone in current rotation), they had a terrible start and are 3-8 (?) against Detroit, they started the year with Arcia in LF and Logan Shafer in CF so are much better defensively with Hicks and Rosario in LF or RF. and they have assets in the system who may be close to ready or ready (Berrios, Polanco, we pray for Buxton, and pray that Alex Meyer figures things out as an RP). It’s been fun to watch but I think/hope the front office will not forfeit the future for the present.
The Pirates’ model for 2011 and 2012 seems like a reasonable comparison.
Or the Twins of 2001.
So have the Athletics just have awful luck with sequencing?
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-remarkably-unclutch-oakland-as/
Tommy Milone is crushing it in AAA, he should be given a shot the minute a Twins starter tweaks something or gets shelled.
By Fangraphs own projections though, the Twins are a real playoff contender right now. You don’t have to think that they are actually this good (or even close to it) to think that they are realistically a potential playoff team because of this start.
I think the site’s approach on this has been very uninteresting. We all know that they aren’t this good but the fact is, they are in the playoff race now even if they revert to their projections. Couldn’t that be the springboard to talk about more interesting aspects like what they can do to improve this year to increase their chances without forfeiting the future?
The Twins’ 27% odds are just as valid as any other team’s would be and I don’t think Dave would be suggesting to them that they shouldn’t be buyers. I think this article is every bit as blind as the Twins fans that claim the team is actually this good.
I kind of agree but I think the substance of his point – don’t sell your future for this year – is valid. As Dave said, flyers on low risk guys (Harang) is fine b/c that’s not going to cost you Buxton. But making a deal for Hamels wouldn’t be smart and Terry Ryan almost certainly agrees.
I do wish however that the discussions about how sucky the Twins really are would take into account how bad they stated and how that plays into the first two months of stats. Over a year, that start will be diluted more but right now, it’s still pretty big. Because they started poorly, their wOBA was lower than it is – in May it lines up pretty well with runs scored. And I would bet that since mid April it’s pretty in line as well. As the Twins gained about 50 runs in run differential.
Well, Dave also points out that the team is sucky based on its projections, and those are based on a lot more than the Twins’ stinky start to the season.
The BaseRuns stuff is actually a bit of a red herring. Even if this group of Twins had actually over-achieved on a player by player basis and “earned” those wins, they’d still probably play poorly going forward.
Dave isn’t trying to be a jerk. He’s saying let your team play and do whaver minor improvements you can or promotion from within. But don’t mortgage the future. Don’t trade Sano for Cueto for example to make a vain attempt to make the playoffs(unlikely but it is an example). I would also add don’t rush your youngsters either. Keep looking at the long term. There is a lot of talent coming for the Twins, enjoying and leveraging the run is good but lets not get carried away and go all in. Thats all he is saying.
Living in the Twin Cities, it is refreshing to read this. I have been a season ticket holder, at times, even in the 1990s when the team was terrible and everyone knew it. I could deal with that, even if it took rooting for and wearing the caps of the opposing teams.
But, being told that the team is good, when its not (90% of what gets published here), is just annoying. And, any team that has Mike Pelfrey as one of the better starters, is living in backwards world. It would be nice to see some young talent develop here. Until then, I’ll be paying more attention to the Cubs. Bryant? Russell? Baez (in AAA)? Those guys seem to be for real.
Mr. Cameron: do you have any of that historical BaseRuns data (2002-present) available on the site? I only see it in the current year standings. It would be fun to peruse.
Interesting that all 3 of those teams also won 11-12 more games than their Pythag. Would be curious what the largest BaseRun / Pythag discrepancy would be.
And if you could break it down in-season, it would be interesting what other teams have had 49 game stretches of BaseRun over-performance comparable to the 2015 Twins.
THis is one of the largest divergence in such a small number of games. I don’t think almost anything else have come close. If they kept up this pace they would as Dave said be 30 games over their expected.
I get the pace thing, but that’s not the right comparison. It’s like saying so-and-so is on pace for 80 HR and it’s never been done — except all the other players who have been on an 80 HR pace at the same time.
The article says nothing about how they compare to 50 game stretches by other teams from 2002-2014, Presumably the data is not too hard to find for Dave (or make it public, please!).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA
Maybe…
Or maybe not…
But there’s a lot of talent in the Central. The Tigers are extremely talented, the Royals have elite team defense and great pitching, and the Indians have some pitchers who can take over a game, including one of the best in the AL, as well as some offensive upside. Playing those three teams a lot could end up hurting the Twins through the rest of the season.
They’ve already played 21 games against those three teams (9-12 in them but only a losing record against Detroit). By SOS, the Twins have had one of the harder schedules in the league.
Some noticeable hitting numbers for the Twins.
wRC+: 94 (T-17)
wOBA: .305 (19)
K%: 20.7 (20)
BABIP: .308 (8)
The Twins have top-tier production from Dozier at 2B and Plouffe at 3B. Torii Hunter, even as a 40-year old defensive liability, has been a solid hitter and at this point looks to justify his contract this year (barring injury). Suzuki (regressing from 2014) and Mauer (slowly morphing into the over-40 year old Pumpkin Pie haircutted Pete Rose) might end up slightly above replacement. Those are your decent or passable players who are propping up the team walk rate, striking out less, and providing nearly all of the hitting value. Hunter is finishing up his career, I feel that Mauer is what he is and isn’t magically going to revert back to 2012-13 for more than flashes at a time, and Suzuki most likely had his best Twins season last year. That leaves Dozier (who they wisely extended) and Plouffe (who they have to decide if they want to extend) as current MLB assets with value.
All the other non-pitchers on the roster give me cause for concern. Kennys Vargas and Oswaldo Arcia are low-to-average BB%, high-K%, worrisome contact-rate, power masher types who can’t play defense anywhere. Eduardo Escobar and Danny Santana are impatient, wild-swinging middle infielder/outfielder types (hitting poorly at the moment) who don’t hit enough to play a corner spot and haven’t really looked comfortable defensively where they have played. Aaron Hicks is looking like he is headed for a Peter Bourjos-type career as a defensive replacement 4th-OF type with some speed. Eddie Rosario is a better defender than Arcia, but his numbers in the minors haven’t exactly been overly impressive. Everyone else is clearly a bench/fringe player (Shane Robinson, Eduardo Nunez, Chris Hermann)
Most of these guys are young (23-25), so I’m definitely not saying that they are hopeless causes. It’s just that the numbers are cause for concern. It’s fun to see the Twins doing well and overachieving, but unless Terry Ryan is able to trade for one or two league-average position players at the deadline, it’s likely not going to continue.
But, with Ervin Santana coming back, a couple of intriguing pitching decisions to make, and the ever-tempting possibility of Buxton and Sano coming up, you just never know. It will be interesting to see how everything plays out.
A lot of those numbers are different if you look just at the last 30 days or if you look at a longer period like the last calendar year. Over the last 30 days they are 8th by wRC+, over the last year, they are tied for 9th. That first week of the season notwithstanding, they seem to be a solidly above average offensive team.
Last 30 days:
Danny Santana .203/.233/.325 (.242 wOBA), .270 BABIP, 2.3% BB, 23.0% K in 87 PA
Eduardo Escobar .284/.304/.392 (.310 wOBA), .339 BABIP, 3.8% BB, 20.0% K in 80 PA
Eddie Rosario .298/.317/.421 (.320 wOBA), .405 BABIP, 3.3% BB, 31.1% K in 61 PA
Joe Mauer .247/.279/.351 (.271 wOBA), .291 BABIP, 3.8% BB, 18.3% K in 104 PA
Not exactly killing it.
Dozier, Plouffe, and Hunter have very much supplied the bats in May, but everyone else?
Last year and this year have been *completely different sets of circumstances* for the Twins’ run-scoring totals, some of which are sustainable, some not. Danny Santana was worth three wins by somehow being able to sustain a .405 BABIP over 430 PA in 2014. Now, with a .311 BABIP and similar plate discipline numbers, he is sporting a .241 wOBA. Kennys Vargas hit for nice power in his 2014 debut and posted a good slash line despite the strikeouts. This year he has been demoted to the minors. Eduardo Escobar was worth two-and-a-half wins in 2014 and is below replacement in 2015. Oswaldo Arcia has been hurt and mostly ineffective when he has played.
The two guys who lead the charge both in 2014 AND 2015: Dozier and Plouffe
The one new addition who has helped out in 2015: Torii Hunter
The 2014 leaders who have regressed in 2015: Pretty much everyone else.
Again, many of these guys are young and could very well break out. Having bouts of success at major league level in your early 20s is something for them to build on. Adjustments have been made on them and they in turn must work to adjust. I’m just a little bit skeptical because they are low-to-middling-BB%, high K%, contact issue hitters (which statistically have a high level of flame-out) and they make up a good half of the roster.
I just feel that the good fortune with RISP and sequencing could dry up quick. I’m happy that the Twins are doing well, that Molitor has brought a fresh, creative, and informed perspective to the manager’s chair (except for using Tim Stauffer, yeah. . . don’t use him please, kthx), and that this is even a discussion in the first place. I just feel that the numbers of the majority of the lineup point to a regression and that smart deadline deals to upgrade at key positions without sacrificing core minor league talent (Buxton, Sano) could sustain this run from the offensive side.
11 over might be a stretch, but maybe this team aint all that bad. Hunter has been a big influence and I think Molitor is doing well. Molitor seems to make some good calls in difficult situation. The Twins might just have something with Molitor as a manager.
Great article! I’m honestly just excited that someone is noticing the Twins. I don’t have any definitive numbers on this, but the Twins score an awful lot of their runs in the first three innings. I wonder if there is any connection to their hot start or if this scoring pattern is historically significant? It would be cool to see some sort of article on that, too. Go Twins!
108 in the first three, 107 in the next six according to this
http://www.pressreader.com/usa/usa-today-weekend-extra/20150531/282183649655150/TextView
What if the sequencing occurred mainly in their blowout wins? Wouldn’t their record still be similar?