Potential playoff teams get injured and collapse all the time. It's often followed by a long losing streak as it forces a rebuild. Just last year the Rangers collapsed the same way the Twins did in 2011.

In no way, shape, or form was the Twins' 2011-2014 "an epic failure, one of the worst in modern baseball history". That statement was outlandish and hyperbolic, just admit it. I don't even know why I'm arguing this.

 

Me neither. You took what I wrote out of context, which I do admit is understandable given how I phrased it. But then I subsequently clarified what I meant.

 

The point was in the context of the thread, in particular the Twins ability to evaluate their own talent. My comment was a direct follow up on that issue. Teams have torn things down, they have been destroyed by injuries, but it is rare for a team to be so wrong about where they stand as the Twins were when their losing stretch began and even as it continued (e.g., not trading Willingham).

 

If your team is wiped out by unpredictable injuries, did management really fail? I would say no, that it would depend on the organization's response to the unfortunate circumstances.

 

The Twins situation was not really unpredictable, and they responded poorly. Revise my verbiage to a 'serious fail' if that would avoid the sin of hyperbole, but there's no question it happened and that it has relevance to the club's situation today.

 

Here's the thing:  they may seem like boneheaded decisions to you and others.

 

But for the most part they seem to be working.

 

So, who is to say that they are:

 

 

 

You can choose to drive drunk, and not get in an accident, doesn't make the decision less boneheaded. Doesn't mean that luck doesn't play a role.*

 

*I am not saying if the decisions the Twins are making are good or bad.....just that judging them on an outcome or 10 is not valid at all.

 

JB, it' just like Mike's analogy.  Just because you didn't get caught last night driving home from the bar drunk doesn't make the decision any less boneheaded.  

 

There are good roster moves and there are bad moves regardless of how much or how little the team is winning and it doesn't make the Vargas demotion acceptable. 

 

This kind of group think is part of the reason why the Twins have had 4 losing seasons in a row with 90 plus losses.  Sure the sum of one part (roster move) may not be greater than the whole, but enough bad decisions like Nunez, Stauffer, Duensing, Boyer, Bernier, etc. will eventually have a negative impact on this team at some point. 

 

Just because you think its "WORKING" right now doesn't make it okay.  

 

This kind of group think is part of the reason why the Twins have had 4 losing seasons in a row with 90 plus losses.  Sure the sum of one part (roster move) may not be greater than the whole, but enough bad decisions like Nunez, Stauffer, Duensing, Boyer, Bernier, etc. will eventually have a negative impact on this team at some point. 

Only if they stick around. Bernier has one start this season. Nunez hasn't started since he was reactivated. I don't get Nunez on this team at all but he hasn't been terrible as a bench option. You'll get no arguments from me about the bullpen.

 

Roster moves are made all the time to fit player development, upcoming schedule, and a host of other things. If Bernier gets one start as an insurance policy during a road trip that has the team playing in an NL park, was it really a bad decision?

 

I agree that if Bernier, Nunez, et al are holding down playing time (not roster spots, actual playing time) from guys like Pinto, Arcia, Rosario, Hicks, Vargas, etc. then it's a problem.

 

But right now, it's not a problem. It's not bone-headed if the Twins are using those players as temporary placeholders to improve the team right now and also work in development time for younger players who would be sitting on the bench otherwise.

 

Roster moves should not be examined in isolation. If this turns out to be a short-term move to shore up a temporary problem, then all of this is much ado about nothing. Teams need bench players and they're bench players for a reason; they're not very good at baseball.

 

Only if they stick around. Bernier has one start this season. Nunez hasn't started since he was reactivated. I don't get Nunez on this team at all but he hasn't been terrible as a bench option. You'll get no arguments from me about the bullpen.

 

Roster moves are made all the time to fit player development, upcoming schedule, and a host of other things. If Bernier gets one start as an insurance policy during a road trip that has the team playing in an NL park, was it really a bad decision?

 

I agree that if Bernier, Nunez, et al are holding down playing time (not roster spots, actual playing time) from guys like Pinto, Arcia, Rosario, Hicks, Vargas, etc. then it's a problem.

 

But right now, it's not a problem. It's not bone-headed if the Twins are using those players as temporary placeholders to improve the team right now and also work in development time for younger players who would be sitting on the bench otherwise.

 

Roster moves should not be examined in isolation. If this turns out to be a short-term move to shore up a temporary problem, then all of this is much ado about nothing. Teams need bench players and they're bench players for a reason; they're not very good at baseball.

 

Whatever man.  Teams DO need bench players but not at the expense of fielding an inferior bench.  Guys like Vargas, Pinto, etc. should be with the major league club and not twiddling their thumbs in AAA.  

Edited May 21, 201511 yr by laloesch

 

Whatever man.  Teams DO need bench players but not at the expense of fielding an inferior bench.  Guys like Vargas, Pinto, etc. should be with the major league club and not twiddling their thumbs in AAA.  

Pinto has 23 starts at catcher in Rochester. He's not twiddling his thumbs. He's playing at the highest level the Twins can put him while getting still getting the majority of starts at his desired position. I call that "player development".

How about Stauffer for Vargas/Pinto, Brock?

How about Stauffer for Vargas/Pinto, Brock?

I think Vargas is back soon. I still don't understand why he was demoted.

 

And please let Oliveros get the call soon. Pick a reliever to release, I don't even really care at this point.

 

I put my money on the Twins to win the division and got some odds that now seem pretty good -- 15 to 1.

Got em at 35 :1

 

Pinto has 23 starts at catcher in Rochester. He's not twiddling his thumbs. He's playing at the highest level the Twins can put him while getting still getting the majority of starts at his desired position. I call that "player development".

 

Minnesota 

2014 - 57 games  .214 BA (obviously a bad season for him)

2013 - 21 games  .342 BA

 

Rochester

2015 - 33             .274 BA

2014 - 60             .279 BA

2013 - 19             .314 BA

 

 

Call it what you want.  I'd rather have PInto and Vargas over Herrmann, Nunez and Bernier.

 

 

Thanks Jimmer,

 

I've been trying to think of how to formulate my concern not so much with the stat itself but the weight we should give it or maybe how we should perceive it.

 

(And it's possible I'm the only one reading these predictions in this way when we should remember they are projections instead).

 

According to current standings, the Twins are a 91-71 team.

According to current pyth w/l, the Twins are a 83-79 team.

According to current base runs, the Twins are a 64-98 team.  

 

  

In the last week, this has changed

 

By standings, the Twins are a 95-67 team

By pyth they are an 88-74 team

By base runs they are a 70-92 team.

 

So, good week for us.

Yes. 83 wins.

I was at 85ish and remain there if and when Buxton sano or berrios come up or if we make an early trade I'd go up but the team as it is is a between .500 and 2 and wildcard team

The twins last 4 years was horrible because some guy on AM radio decided 90 losses was a milestone of some sort. Prior to that the difference between 88 loses and 92 was 4 games.

 

The twins last 4 years was horrible because some guy on AM radio decided 90 losses was a milestone of some sort. Prior to that the difference between 88 loses and 92 was 4 games.

I thought the Twins last 4 years were horrible because they played incredibly horrible ball in practically every facet of the game.

Edited May 27, 201511 yr by jimmer

 

(And it's possible I'm the only one reading these predictions in this way when we should remember they are projections instead).

 

According to current standings, the Twins are a 91-71 team.

According to current pyth w/l, the Twins are a 83-79 team.

According to current base runs, the Twins are a 64-98 team.  

 

So, going forward, which is right?

It should be noted that none of these records are predictions or projections, no more than reporting a player's first two months stats in various forms. Even the Fangraphs page that lists these records does not directly extrapolate anything from them:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=BaseRuns

 

The Fangraphs rest of season projected standings are listed separately, and in the Twins case, are largely unchanged due to the first two months.  Rest of season is still basically preseason projection and neutral luck over the remaining games, which is then added to current record (including any good/bad luck to date) to get the current full season projected record.  The Twins rest of season projected winning percentage (.454) is virtually identical to their preseason projected winning percentage (.457).

 

Interestingly, based mostly on the first two months luck, we now have a 22% chance at the playoffs, a big increase over the 5% preseason chance.

Edited May 28, 201511 yr by spycake

Base runs aficionados: any idea where to see base run records for previous seasons?  Looks like Fangraphs only has them for the current season.  Would be interested to see historical data on them.