Article: How The Twins Could Lose Another 100 Games

[Tom Froemming]

Despite the roster looking eerily similar to the one that produced a 100-loss season in 2016, some Twins fans have taken an optimistic view toward this upcoming season. And why not? It's January, when you're this far away from Opening Day hope springs eternal. Anything seems possible.

 

With the amount of youth on the team, it's not completely ludicrous to believe in a turnaround. But what I haven't really seen is anyone make the counter argument that the team could be just as bad, maybe even worse, next year. I'm guessing the main reason is because, well, it's not really any fun. But the truth is it's as easy to come up with legit reasons why the Twins could actually regress in 2017.It takes a whole lot bad baseball and bad luck to lose over 100 games. Right now, it's hard to imagine the Twins repeating that feat, but nobody was predicting they'd be that bad last season, either. Here are some things that could lead to another 100-loss season for the Twins.

 

Ervin Santana fails to repeat (like he always does)

 

When pointing to the unaddressed issue of the pitching staff, most of the Twins hope dealers are quick to point to Santana as if he is some kind of bankable commodity. They'll say things like "well at the top of the rotation we've got Ervin, and we know he'll be solid." Really? Ask Angles fans about the reliability of Santana.

 

Santana is coming off a great season, but prior to coming to Minnesota he was terribly inconsistent. He appeared to break out in 2008, his fourth season in the majors, by posting a 3.49 ERA. The next year it was at 5.03. He appeared to have another breakout in 2011, finishing that season with a 3.38 ERA. The next year it was 5.16.

 

The yo-yo nature of Ervin's production continued in 2013 when he came back with another strong performance, posting a 3.24 ERA. Then came two mediocre seasons. He was great last year, but if the pattern continues things don't look good for 2017. He has five seasons in which his ERA+ has been over 105, but he's never done it back-to-back.

 

Beyond Santana's inconsistent track record, there's also the fact that he turned 34 last month. There are only ten active pitchers who've made more starts than Santana's 343, and that includes free agents Kyle Lohse, Jake Peavy and Bronson Arroyo. Father time will catch up to him eventually.

 

Jason Castro is a mere mortal

 

Many of the optimists point to Castro, the only major addition this offseason, as the sole reason to believe the Twins' pitching woes will be fixed. As if he is a magic wand that will somehow mend basically the same pitching staff that gave up 128 more runs than any other American League team.

 

In my opinion, framing numbers should to be taken with a grain of salt. In order for a catcher to intentionally try to steal strikes, it helps if his pitcher has the command to put a pitch just outside the zone. Does the Houston pitching staff deserve more credit for Castro's impressive framing marks? I think it's certainly possible.

 

Also, I suspect there may be umpire backlash against catchers who have reputations as plus framers. I do believe strongly that being a good framer is a skill. Castro has that skill, however, the positive impact he can make greatly depends on the guy he's looking at on the mound and the guy behind him calling strikes.

 

And I know he wasn't brought in for his bat, but Castro has hit .173/.240/.257 (.497 OPS) against lefties over the past two seasons. Travis Wood has a better career OPS (.522) than that. He's a pitcher. Just sayin'.

 

Miguel Sano and Jorge Polanco both look like they should be DHing

 

We've only seen limited samples of both Sano at third base and Polanco at shortstop in the majors, but things haven't exactly looked promising. Of 39 players to have logged 350 innings at third base last year, Sano ranked 22nd in defensive runs above average. That's not horrendous, but also not great. Using that same threshold, Polanco ranked 35th at shortstop, ahead of only Alexei Ramirez. Ick.

 

Putting them together could be a complete disaster. Whatever upgrade Castro will be behind the plate may be negated by poor defense on the left side of the infield.

 

 

Phil Hughes and Glen Perkins are finished

 

In 214 1/3 innings pitched between 2015 & '16, Phil Hughes had a 4.83 ERA. He gave up 52 doubles and 40 home runs. Opposing hitters had an .822 OPS against him. He only mustered 5.4 K/9. That's real bad.

 

After the 2015 All-Star break, Perkins had a 7.32 ERA and gave up seven home runs in just 19 2/3 innings pitched. That's real bad too. Optimists are hoping those ugly numbers came because both were pitching hurt. But the fact remains we haven't seen either Hughes or Perkins healthy or productive for a while now. It's possible we never do.

 

Brian Dozier regresses (duh)

 

Dozier hit as many home runs in the second half of 2016 (28) as he had in any previous full season. He's as good of a regression candidate as anybody in baseball. It would be hard to envision some kind of complete collapse from Dozier, but even if he fades back to the player he was pre-2016 it'll hurt this team's chances of getting out of the basement.

 

If the team lost 100 with Dozier going completely nuts, what could happen if he has a down year?

 

Max Kepler falls victim to the sophomore slump

 

Lost in the jubilee of the Dozier homer derby was the fact that Kepler struggled down the stretch. After the break, he hit just .233/.304/.391. We've seen our share of Twins struggle to make adjustments in the majors and it's easy to forget Max hasn't even turned 24 yet. There may be some growing pains ahead.

 

No, Kepler doesn't have some of the same, obvious contact issues that plagued Danny Santana, Eddie Rosario and Miguel Sano, but he also struggled to drive the ball late in the year. He'll need to react to how pitchers will be attacking him.

 

Byron Buxton and Jose Berrios fail to materialize

 

That last month of Buxton sure was fun to see, but he didn't do much to solve his biggest issues. He still struck out in over a third of his plate appearances. But at least Buxton had a nice stretch of productive baseball. Of Berrios' 14 starts, there's really not a one that stands out as a strong performance. He was hittable (11.4 H/9) and struggled with control (5.4 BB/9).

 

Both Buxton, 23, and Berrios, 22, showed us so much in the minors and have impressive prospect pedigrees, but, like Kepler, it's likely they still have some struggles to endure on the road to establishing themselves. I have little doubt all three of those guys will have fine major league careers, but I'm not so sure they all take off in 2017.

 

And there we have it, my reasons why the Twins could have another 100-loss season in 2017. I'm sure I've overlooked a few other things that could also cripple the team. If you're willing to take a stroll down Negativity Lane, post your nightmare scenarios in the comments.

 

Click here to view the article

[mikelink45]

Nicely done - I will say that optimism brings us to 95 losses.  Your points are really valid.  There is a reason that Santana was available to us when he was a FA.  Dozier is someone I really want to continue his upward direction, but he is in his 30s, he has only been good 1/2 of each of the last two seasons.  

 

I had such high hopes for both Buxton and Berrios that I have reduced the team losses because I think they will turn things around this year.

 

Finally - thank you for questioning the Castro effect.  I do believe that framing is not going to make this a good pitching staff and his reputation is going to take a hit.  In fact I do not trust the framing stats as they are currently.  Throwing strikes really does beat stealing them.  His bat is weak and we might be saying - I wish we had Suzuki at bat - a few times this season.  

 

Nice essay.

[wsnydes]

I've pegged this team on 70-75 wins because I think things will normalize to an extent.  At times, I think that's being overly optimistic.  I think the odds that they win fewer than 70 are quite a bit higher than they are to win over 75.  With how little things have changed in the pitching, defense, and manager components I don't think it's unreasonable at all to believe that this team will be just as bad or worse than last year.  If the o/u for wins was at 72.5, I'd be all over the under and feel pretty good about that bet.

 

All that said, I think that is part of what I'm anxious to see with the upcoming season.  Are my worst fears for this team correct or is my optimism rewarded or am I completely blown away by how it turned out?  That's why they play the game.  Thanks for the opposite end of the spectrum.

[mazeville]

The Twins could easily lose 100 games again. They lost 100 games last year with Ervin Santana having one of his best seasons and Brian Dozier having a 6 WAR year. So it's easy to see how this team could lose 100 games.

 

I still believe this team is more likely to win 75-80 games than lose 100. But it would not take that much for the Twins to repeat their awful 2016.

[roger]

If we lose 100 again, we should have the #1 pick again in 2018. Maybe that superstar who isn't out there in 2017 will appear in 2018? Does anyone know if there is a Harper, Trout or Bryant headed towards the 2018 draft?

[Penthang]

Also, with E Santana tanking and no return to form for Hughes the rotation has a chance of being epically bad again exposing the bullpen to a whole lot more innings than any wants to see them pitch. This puts Molitor in the position of using all the lefty specialists against right handed batters too much and leaving guys in two or three batters too long.

[TwinsWonWithHunter]

This has been the most insightful thread of the Falvey era. It is time for fans to take this front office to task for a shamefully negligent off-season when the 2016 product--which was a lousy joke--mandated sweeping roster reconstruction.

[Dantes929]

People forget just how obscenely bad the Twins were the first 70 games in relation to their perceived and historic talent.   Nunez wasn't just the only Twin having a good season.  He was the only Twin not having a horrible season.     Santana had a 5.10 ERA by mid June and he was our ace and still our best pitcher.   Nolasco was considered the biggest bright spot on the pitching staff starting or relieving and he was 4-8 with a 5.13 ERA when we traded him away.   It was reasonable to expect good performance from Jepsen, Perkins and May.   I believe they blew their first 5 save opportunities before Jepsen and Perkins were done and May got hurt.   Dozier was looking lost.   Sano was hurt or ineffective.   Plouffe had a good week and then got hurt.   Even good teams need half their roster playing well to have winning records.   The Twins had ONE player in Nunez doing that before Grossman had his good month.   Of course the Twins could lose 100 games again if everything goes horribly wrong.    I don't enter seasons wondering what would happen if everyone on the roster has a really bad year.    I still consider this team to have more talent than the 2010-2014 teams and I expect better performance out of them.

[REPETE]

 

This has been the most insightful post of the Falvey era. It is time for fans to take this front office to task for a shamefully negligent off-season when the 2016 product--which wad nothing short of a lousy joke--mandated sweeping roster reconstruction.

I agree with most of the posters, that 2016 was a disaster, but this team should still probably be around 70-75 wins (basically the same team won 83 the year before). 

 

I don't believe we can blame the FO quite yet, for a number of reasons.  1st, they got a very late start.  2nd, they needed time to evaluate everything they have from low A to the majors.  3rd, there's still a lot of time between now and P & C reporting.  4th, Dozier is the only viable "trade piece" they have, and he's a 2B.  The market for 2B is not great.  Should they have pulled the trigger for DeLeon?  maybe.  But only time will tell.  They still may get a much better return, or DeLeon may turn out to be a bust. 

 

We lost 100+.  This year, as stated, we may do it again.  This turnaround will take time.  Whether its Falvey or TR, this team is too far away to go out & pickup one missing piece.  We need about 5 missing pieces. 

[KGB]

Sano`s glove will never be a plus, but if hits like he hit in 2015 it will not matter. Big year for him to see if he an all star bat or another Chris Carter.

[Vanimal46]

All you have to do is look at the pitching staff to say they have a chance to lose 90+ games again. 

[Willihammer]

Sano will be bad, but there is more downside with his surgically repaired elbow, the one that gave him soreness last August. That's my #1 worry by a mile.

[Doomtints]

 

Sano will be bad, but there is more downside with his surgically repaired elbow, the one that gave him soreness last August. That's my #1 worry by a mile.

 

This is why he should not be at 3rd, where the injury occurred. Sano's value will always be with his bat. If he spends time on the DL due to injuries sustained in the field, the Twins are burning off one of their most exciting assets in the history of the franchise.

 

They should just get it over with and trade him to Boston so he can have the baseball career that he deserves to have.  

Edited January 26, 2017 by Doomtints

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think you missed the most important part of whether the Twins lose 100 games or not:

 

Are they unlucky again?

 

Because not only would it require many of the things you listed to fall under 63 wins again, it'd require another dose of pretty awful luck and sequencing.

 

Pythag had the 2016 Twins at 97 losses. BaseRuns had the 2016 Twins at "just" 91 losses.

 

It's pretty hard to lose 100 games in back-to-back seasons unless you're trying to lose 100 games, as the Astros did in the early 2010s.

 

Had the Twins liquidated Santana and Dozier (and to a lesser extent, Kintzler, Gibson, et al) for MiLB talent, 100 losses would look more likely but they didn't do that.

[Mike Sixel]

I still think 90 or so is about right, maybe 87. In that range. But, you can see how they lose 100 again, I just don't feel that is likely.

[Halsey Hall]

With Plouffe being gone we should improve 10 games.  The only way we lose 100 is if I'm wrong.

[jkill]

The front office has to be looking at 2019 season as a realistic playoff season. As bad as that sounds for the twins fans I think it is reality. You get rid of eeyore at first base and his $23 mill and the roster starts making sense. By then these your players will be established or gone and you will have the working capital to fill with the right veterans. 

[TheLeviathan]

I could see 100 losses, but I think more likely it's in the 90ish range.

[wsnydes]

 

I think you missed the most important part of whether the Twins lose 100 games or not:

 

Are they unlucky again?

 

Because not only would it require many of the things you listed to fall under 63 wins again, it'd require another dose of pretty awful luck and sequencing.

 

Pythag had the 2016 Twins at 97 losses. BaseRuns had the 2016 Twins at "just" 91 losses.

 

It's pretty hard to lose 100 games in back-to-back seasons unless you're trying to lose 100 games, as the Astros did in the early 2010s.

 

Had the Twins liquidated Santana and Dozier (and to a lesser extent, Kintzler, Gibson, et al) for MiLB talent, 100 losses would look more likely but they didn't do that.

To some extent, I believe that teams make their own luck.  Poor game management and compounding mistakes with other mistakes allows an unlucky bounce here or there to play a major role in the outcome of the game.  That doesn't totally account for a broader look at things like when you play a team, whether you're going against aces every third night, etc but I think it plays a part in it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I still think 90 or so is about right, maybe 87. In that range. But, you can see how they lose 100 again, I just don't feel that is likely.

I look at this roster and see a team that could win 60 games or a team that could win 80 games depending how I squint at them.

 

As is often the case with a team full of second- and third-year players whose performance has been middling. Sometimes, a bunch of those players click and the team surprises the hell out of everyone. Sometimes, those players bomb out of MLB or stumble for another year and you get a 100 loss season. Most of the time, a few players succeed, a few fail, and the team is bad but not terrible.

 

The Twins aren't the 2011 Astros, where they threw the rookies to the wolves and racked up losses. In fact, will the Twins even leave Spring Training with a rookie on the roster (excluding the pen)? Most of their players are entering the "put up or shut up" phase of their careers, somewhere between 400-1000 PAs.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

To some extent, I believe that teams make their own luck.  Poor game management and compounding mistakes with other mistakes allows an unlucky bounce here or there to play a major role in the outcome of the game.  That doesn't totally account for a broader look at things like when you play a team, whether you're going against aces every third night, etc but I think it plays a part in it.

I believe teams make their own luck to an extent but if it was a repeatable skill, pythag and BaseRuns wouldn't yo-yo up and down from season to season.

 

But that's exactly what happens every year. You roll out a team with the same manager and core and they're +6 pythag one season, -4 pythag the next.

[TheLeviathan]

Right, this team's youth makes the possible outcomes for this season pretty broad.  But it's going to have to find some pitching somehow for me to approach 80 wins.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Right, this team's youth makes the possible outcomes for this season pretty broad.  But it's going to have to find some pitching somehow for me to approach 80 wins.

It would require Santana to repeat, Gibson to not be terrible again, and for May and Berrios to be somewhere around league average.

 

I'm... not confident in predicting that to happen.

[theBOMisthebomb]

You lightly touched on it with Polanco comments... my bigger picture concern is who will play shortstop and provide any defense and offensive production if Polanco fails or even when Polanco is on the bench.

[Doomtints]

 

You lightly touched on it with Polanco comments... my bigger picture concern is who will play shortstop and provide any defense and offensive production if Polanco fails or even when Polanco is on the bench.

 

By the time Polanco has had enough time at SS to fail, Dozier will be gone and Gordon will be up. This is a non-issue.

[Willihammer]

 

This is why he should not be at 3rd, where the injury occurred. Sano's value will always be with his bat. If he spends time on the DL due to injuries sustained in the field, the Twins are burning off one of their most exciting assets in the history of the franchise.

Yeah, the main thing is to keep his bat in the lineup. What I'd do- flip flop Mauer and Sano across the diamond. No reason Mauer couldn't play third as well as Sano.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Willihammer

[Taildragger8791]

Has there been any word this offseason on what Sano has been up to this offseason? Did he play in any winter leagues? I'd be curious to see how he looks when he shows up to spring training here, physically and focus-wise. I think it'll say a lot about the season he's going to have. Hopefully he learned he won't get by on talent alone at this level and was motivated to work a little harder at his craft.

 

Another year of nagging injuries, looking sloppy, and appearing mentally unfocused is going to be disappointing. A focused and tenacious Sano should be scary good. I hope that's what we get starting in 2017.

[Tom Froemming]

 

I think you missed the most important part of whether the Twins lose 100 games or not:

 

Are they unlucky again?

 

Because not only would it require many of the things you listed to fall under 63 wins again, it'd require another dose of pretty awful luck and sequencing.

 

Pythag had the 2016 Twins at 97 losses. BaseRuns had the 2016 Twins at "just" 91 losses.

 

It's pretty hard to lose 100 games in back-to-back seasons unless you're trying to lose 100 games, as the Astros did in the early 2010s.

 

Had the Twins liquidated Santana and Dozier (and to a lesser extent, Kintzler, Gibson, et al) for MiLB talent, 100 losses would look more likely but they didn't do that.

Kinda did here in the third paragraph: "It takes a whole lot bad baseball and bad luck to lose over 100 games." But you are right, luck is a big factor. There aren't many teams you ever look at and project 100 losses based on talent. A lot has to go wrong.

 

It seems like most people are projecting a win total in the low 70s, which seems fair. Really good luck maybe gets you to .500. Really bad luck maybe gets you back to 100 losses.

 

Something I didn't mention I just thought of is even if Dozier and Ervin play well that'll only increase the odds they'll be traded at the deadline unless the Twins are in the playoff hunt. A so-so first half could result in a liquidation, and we could see a stripped down roster tanking over the last couple months. 

 

That's maybe the biggest wild card in predicting what's going to happen in a season: how the roster transforms between Opening Day to Game 162.

[Doomtints]

 

Yeah, the main thing is to keep his bat in the lineup. What I'd do- flip flop Mauer and Sano across the diamond. No reason Mauer couldn't play third as well as Sano.

 

Unfortunately 3B has to cover part of the OF when 2B is empty and there is thus an increased risk of collision. One also must consider collisions from having to tag sliding baserunners. Mauer should not be over there.

[hybridbear]

This article is very realistic. I want to hope for improvement, but I don't expect it.