Article: The Falvey And Levine Machine

[drjim]

That said, would be prettt awesome if they are doing interviews in 5 weeks saying, "We were just getting organized and evaluating and we won the whole bleeping thing..."

[Otto von Ballpark]

It was a team 3 games under .500, with a far worse Pythagorean W/L, coming off a 100-loss season. To make their playoff run, they needed to play .600 ball while EVERY OTHER TEAM in the league (sans the 4 clearly superior playoff squads) to completely folded.

 

If you had faith in the Twins' ability to do this, as a fan, then I commend you. But there was no real reason for a front office to foresee this outcome based on a rational analysis. It's literally one of the first times something like this has ever happened. I hope (and trust) that in the future they'll continue to make decisions on the same basis.

 

If they would've sunk the team's chances I would get this argument, but they didn't, not even close! The Twins still walked away with this thing, and not having Kintzler or Garcia won't be the reason they fail to advance.

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.

[Nick Nelson]

 

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.

These are all flawed teams. The Twins came out on top of a mediocre pack that is clearly a significant step behind the Top 4 and especially the Top 3. 

 

Maybe they'll win against the Yankees. Maybe they'll somehow pull off an upset in the ALDS and even the ALCS, though I think we all recognize this is outrageously unlikely because pitching wins in October and the Twins don't have it. They wouldn't have had it if Kintzler was here. 

 

Whatever they do next month, it will serve as a springboard going forward, and that should be the real focus. They need to build a championship-caliber staff and while I'm not convinced Littell, or Enns, or Watson will be part of it, they have a chance to help and that's better than nothing for two guys who'd have been here making a minimal difference for a total of 60 innings or so. (In fact, Garcia would've been a net negative, which nobody on the other side of this debate seems to want to address. Trading him will go down as a brilliant move if either prospect they get back has an impact in 2018/19.)

 

Re: Kintzler. I get that he was the team's best-performing reliever, but let's not act like the Twins traded Glen Perkins or Joe Nathan in his prime. This is a closer with a K/9 of 5 and an xFIP of 4.25. I'm not really going to defend the trade because Watson doesn't seem like anything special but conceptually I like the idea of giving up a non-elite relief rental for value when you have a middling shot at a 1-game wild card play-in. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

These are all flawed teams. The Twins came out on top of a mediocre pack that is clearly a significant step behind the Top 4 and especially the Top 3.

I think that's being generous. People continue to ignore just how unlikely the events of August and September were in retrospect.

 

At the deadline, there were eight legitimate contenders for the second Wild Card (as we basically knew the Yankees were going to get in unless something devastating happened to them):

 

SEA, BAL, MIN, KC, LAA, TEX, TOR, TB

 

For Minnesota to get into the postseason - a Minnesota team that was reeling at the deadline and falling backward by the day - it required all seven teams to fold down the stretch. None of them are going to finish the season over .500. That's absurd. No one should or would have predicted that to happen.

 

The odds of that happening are... Well, I don't even know. I don't think I've seen it happen in baseball before this season.

 

Of course, it happened. The Twins are in. But if you think betting on the Hail Mary is a good long-term play, I'd prefer you not run the baseball team I follow every season.

[Loosey]

The fact the team was competitive this season really didn't give Falvine a chance to show what they could have done if the team would have played closer to expectations.  A lot people are complaining about the fact they didn't do much to improve this or that.  The team was basically a middle of the road team.  They were playing OK baseball, not good enough to shoot for the moon and not bad enough to sell off veteran assets.  I think this offseason will give them a chance to show what they can do now that they have also started getting their own people in place in the front-office (or at least getting rid of old regime guys).

[Mike Sixel]

 

Not having Kintzler might very well be the reason we stop moving. And I don't care that it's never happened before. The two team wild card is just a few years old now so that long history of the game doesn't really factor in. Baltimore was flawed, Tampa was flawed, KC was flawed We had winning records against the teams we had to pass. I want a FO who is smarter and not basing decisions on runs scored in April. We traded those two guys (and the Kintzler trade is the worse one) for people who are more likely than not to never make the majors and, if they do, most likely as a relief arm. There is some ceiling there, of course, but it wasn't a huge return. 

 

I'd call judging the likelihood of making the playoffs smart, not not smart. Just because they beat the odds doesn't mean they made a bad decision. 

[gunnarthor]

 

I'd call judging the likelihood of making the playoffs smart, not not smart. Just because they beat the odds doesn't mean they made a bad decision. 

My concern is that they didn't know how to calculate the odds.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

My concern is that they didn't know how to calculate the odds.

What basis do you have for that statement? For the Twins to clinch yesterday, it required seven teams to fold down to the stretch. Not four of seven, which is what you'd expect. Not five of seven, which is still reasonable.

 

All seven teams.

 

Here are the records on the morning of August 1st followed by the records from August 1 through today:

 

Seattle: 54-53 / 23-29

Tampa Bay: 54-53 / 22-29

Kansas City: 55-49 / 23-31 (ouch)

Texas: 50-55 / 26-27

Toronto: 49-57 / 26-27

Los Angeles: 51-55 / 27-25 (hey, a winning record!)

Baltimore: 51-54 / 24-30

 

Minnesota: 50-53 / 33-22

 

One team out of eight made a legitimate run and it happened to be the team that was playing terrible baseball on July 31st. Sometimes that happens but it's not a flaw in analysis to fail to predict something unlikely to happen.

 

The team with the worst pitching staff amongst contenders (non-Orioles edition) somehow went on a stretch run that defied any and all expectations. Again, it happens but it's not something you predict because baseball is crazy. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think that's being generous. People continue to ignore just how unlikely the events of August and September were in retrospect.

 

At the deadline, there were eight legitimate contenders for the second Wild Card (as we basically knew the Yankees were going to get in unless something devastating happened to them):

 

SEA, BAL, MIN, KC, LAA, TEX, TOR, TB

 

For Minnesota to get into the postseason - a Minnesota team that was reeling at the deadline and falling backward by the day - it required all seven teams to fold down the stretch. None of them are going to finish the season over .500. That's absurd. No one should or would have predicted that to happen.

 

The odds of that happening are... Well, I don't even know. I don't think I've seen it happen in baseball before this season.

 

Of course, it happened. The Twins are in. But if you think betting on the Hail Mary is a good long-term play, I'd prefer you not run the baseball team I follow every season.

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.

[Otto von Ballpark]

What basis do you have for that statement? For the Twins to clinch yesterday, it required seven teams to fold down to the stretch. Not four of seven, which is what you'd expect. Not five of seven, which is still reasonable.

 

All seven teams.

 

Here are the records on the morning of August 1st followed by the records from August 1 through today:

 

Seattle: 54-53 / 23-29

Tampa Bay: 54-53 / 22-29

Kansas City: 55-49 / 23-31 (ouch)

Texas: 50-55 / 26-27

Toronto: 49-57 / 26-27

Los Angeles: 51-55 / 27-25 (hey, a winning record!)

Baltimore: 51-54 / 24-30

 

Minnesota: 50-53 / 33-22

 

One team out of eight made a legitimate run and it happened to be the team that was playing terrible baseball on July 31st. Sometimes that happens but it's not a flaw in analysis to fail to predict something unlikely to happen.

 

The team with the worst pitching staff amongst contenders (non-Orioles edition) somehow went on a stretch run that defied any and all expectations. Again, it happens but it's not something you predict because baseball is crazy.

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.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

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.

Two teams were over .500 but four other teams were basically in the same position as the Twins (but weren't collapsing at the time). To expect none of them to make a run is pretty unreasonable.

 

To add to the problem, the Twins were in the position of having the worst pitching staff outside Baltimore. It's reasonable to lament the Kintzler trade somewhat but it wasn't some huge mis-step by the front office.

 

If you had 50 games left to play and a bunch of mediocre teams in the mix, who do you pick to come out on top? It's not the team with a terrible pitching staff and one that is reeling, losing games in both the division and Wild Card by the day. The Twins were coming off two losing months and a terrible two week stretch of play. They were 46-44 on July 15th and closed out the month at 50-53.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

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.

See, I hope they were. The Twins had to make a decision around July 28-29. The Royals were hot and likely in the hunt to acquire pieces. The Twins were reeling and had to make a decision whether they could catch the Royals. And right there, in that moment, the situation looked dire.

 

I supported the decision at the time and still support it today. Just because the Twins bats came alive to an extent no one predicted doesn't mean the decision to do a mild sell was the wrong one.

[Otto von Ballpark]

These are all flawed teams. The Twins came out on top of a mediocre pack that is clearly a significant step behind the Top 4 and especially the Top 3.

 

Maybe they'll win against the Yankees. Maybe they'll somehow pull off an upset in the ALDS and even the ALCS, though I think we all recognize this is outrageously unlikely because pitching wins in October and the Twins don't have it. They wouldn't have had it if Kintzler was here.

 

Whatever they do next month, it will serve as a springboard going forward, and that should be the real focus. They need to build a championship-caliber staff and while I'm not convinced Littell, or Enns, or Watson will be part of it, they have a chance to help and that's better than nothing for two guys who'd have been here making a minimal difference for a total of 60 innings or so. (In fact, Garcia would've been a net negative, which nobody on the other side of this debate seems to want to address. Trading him will go down as a brilliant move if either prospect they get back has an impact in 2018/19.)

 

Re: Kintzler. I get that he was the team's best-performing reliever, but let's not act like the Twins traded Glen Perkins or Joe Nathan in his prime. This is a closer with a K/9 of 5 and an xFIP of 4.25. I'm not really going to defend the trade because Watson doesn't seem like anything special but conceptually I like the idea of giving up a non-elite relief rental for value when you have a middling shot at a 1-game wild card play-in.

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.

[Lee-The-Twins-Fan]

One thing I believe Falvey and Levine have brought is BETTER analytics.  Molitor has commented during the year about how the analytics staff has worked to make the information more concise and more useful. I think that's part of the reason Goin was dropped. It's not just about assembling the data, it's also about how do you present it to the players so they can understand it and put it into practice - like those little cards the OF carry. I presume it's information on how to position yourself against a given hitter with the given pitcher on the mound. 

 

I think that has contributed to the improved defense, the improved hitting and the improved pitching.

 

The players still have to be the ones implementing the information, but I believe that's part of the Twins' success.

[Otto von Ballpark]

See, I hope they were. The Twins had to make a decision around July 28-29. The Royals were hot and likely in the hunt to acquire pieces. The Twins were reeling and had to make a decision whether they could catch the Royals. And right there, in that moment, the situation looked dire.

 

I supported the decision at the time and still support it today. Just because the Twins bats came alive to an extent no one predicted doesn't mean the decision to do a mild sell was the wrong one.

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.

[gunnarthor]

 

See, I hope they were. The Twins had to make a decision around July 28-29. The Royals were hot and likely in the hunt to acquire pieces. The Twins were reeling and had to make a decision whether they could catch the Royals. And right there, in that moment, the situation looked dire.

 

I supported the decision at the time and still support it today. Just because the Twins bats came alive to an extent no one predicted doesn't mean the decision to do a mild sell was the wrong one.

See, it's ok for fans to support it. That's fine. But we're not supposed to be as smart as the FO. It wasn't that the Twins bats "came alive." It was that the young solid core got experience and started to show the high octane offense that many here thought they'd have before the season started. We lost a couple close games out of the break to the Dodgers and also faced the Yankees and Astros. It was supposed to be our hardest stretch of the schedule. We were still very much in it with winning records against most of the teams we'd need to beat and enough games against the Royals to make it up. And other teams had major pitching issues. It wasn't just us and the Orioles. Kyle GIbson could arguably be the Angels best starter this year. They certainly don't have anyone to hang with Berrios and Santana. KC had a near historic bad offense but we were supposed to sell because they won 8 straight against Chi and Det? 

 

And it's not like they traded Kintzler for a top 100 prospect.  When we traded him, the Twins were just as in the hunt for the second wild card as anyone else.

[Mike Sixel]

One reason the Yankees are so good this year is that last year, despite being "in the hunt", they traded guys and passed the marshmallow test. The Twins passed it this year (though admittedly passing more on pieces than a full marshmallow), and still won!

 

I'd have preferred getting Gray or Verlander myself. Guys that can help in the next 2-3 years, and this year. The FO preferred to deal from the margins for a possible better future. Kintzler is a nice piece, but he's not the delta between this being a serious playoff contender in July, and he's surely not the delta between this team and being legit WS contenders.

 

edit: But I think Verlander is that delta. Put him in front of ESan and Berrios, and you have a legit WS contending team imo.

 

2nd edit: I clearly said between this team .... so that would assume you somehow got Verlander and only traded minor league players.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Mike Sixel

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Really not sure where people are getting "historic" and "unprecedented" as ways to describe how the last 2 months unfolded.

2017 is first time this century only five American League teams will finish the season with a winning record.

 

And the AL had only 14 teams the bulk of that time.

[gunnarthor]

 

One reason the Yankees are so good this year is that last year, despite being "in the hunt", they traded guys and passed the marshmallow test. The Twins passed it this year (though admittedly passing more on pieces than a full marshmallow), and still won!

 

I'd have preferred getting Gray or Verlander myself. Guys that can help in the next 2-3 years, and this year. The FO preferred to deal from the margins for a possible better future. Kintzler is a nice piece, but he's not the delta between this being a serious playoff contender in July, and he's surely not the delta between this team and being legit WS contenders.

 

edit: But I think Verlander is that delta. Put him in front of ESan and Berrios, and you have a legit WS contending team imo.

 

2nd edit: I clearly said between this team .... so that would assume you somehow got Verlander and only traded minor league players.

I'm pretty sure trying to compare the Yankees situation to the Twins will never work. There are far too many problems with that.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm pretty sure trying to compare the Yankees situation to the Twins will never work. There are far too many problems with that.

 

then take that part out, and realize the Twins both passed teh marshmallow test, and still won....and do you think Kintzler is the delta between this team and the WS? Does anyone?

[gunnarthor]

 

then take that part out, and realize the Twins both passed teh marshmallow test, and still won....and do you think Kintzler is the delta between this team and the WS? Does anyone?

I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks the Twins will lose in the WC round. But would I rather have Kintzler closing out games in the post season than have Tyler Watson in the system? Yes.

 

Just because we got *something* for Kintzler doesn't mean it was a good trade for us. Watson has some upside - I don't hate it, he's a good sized pitcher with real upside - but I'd rather have the MLer. Some of it is hindsight but I'm also concerned about how the FO got to this decision. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks the Twins will lose in the WC round. But would I rather have Kintzler closing out games in the post season than have Tyler Watson in the system? Yes.

 

Just because we got *something* for Kintzler doesn't mean it was a good trade for us. Watson has some upside - I don't hate it, he's a good sized pitcher with real upside - but I'd rather have the MLer. Some of it is hindsight but I'm also concerned about how the FO got to this decision. 

 

They don't have the luxury of hope being their long term strategy like fans do. IMO, that's the real difference of opinion in this thread. I do think there is some space for not trading Kintzler, but only if you actually add players. Deciding to tread water as a .500 or so team is about the worst decision one can make if you have impending FA types, imo.

 

Either way, I have no idea how much of this run is their doing, or would have happened if another GM/FO was in charge. It's just not something we can actually understand.

[Otto von Ballpark]

2017 is first time this century only five American League teams will finish the season with a winning record.

 

And the AL had only 14 teams the bulk of that time.

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?

Edited September 28, 2017 by spycake

[spinowner]

 

I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks the Twins will lose in the WC round. But would I rather have Kintzler closing out games in the post season than have Tyler Watson in the system? Yes.

 

I say no. Would having Kintzler on this team be enough to make a difference in whether we win the WS this season? I think not. Would we have re-signed Kintzler? I doubt it. Now, I'm not saying I expect Watson to become the next Corey Kluber but it's likely he will contribute more to the Twins in the course of his time with the organization than Kintzler would have contributed here in 2 months.

In retrospect it is obvious to me that Falvine's decision not to become significant buyers before the deadline was the correct one. Now, no-one knew that Cleveland would run up a win streak of historic proportions but as it turned out going all-in for the short term at the deadline would have, AT BEST, changed the venue of the WC game. And it would have put a serious dent in the medium term and long term.

Edited September 28, 2017 by spinowner

[Otto von Ballpark]

I say no. Would having Kintzler on this team be enough to make a difference in whether we win the WS this season? I think not. Would we have re-signed Kintzler? I doubt it. Now, I'm not saying I expect Watson to become the next Corey Kluber but it's likely he will contribute more to the Twins in the course of his time with the organization than Kintzler would have contributed here in 2 months.

 

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).

[Otto von Ballpark]

In retrospect it is obvious to me that Falvine's decision not to become significant buyers before the deadline was the correct one.

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

[Dman]

 

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.

 

Yeah but given the way the young bats were slumping or at least very inconsistent along with only two viable starting pitching options those odds appeared pretty long in July.  I really think you have a bit too much 20\20 here.  It felt a lot more probable that things would go in the tank than even out IMO.  

 

I know a lot of people on this board felt the FO gave up on the season when they traded Kintzler.  Even the players seemed to feel the same way if I remember correctly.  Knowing what I know now would I rather have Kintzler? Probably, but even if we still had him i doubt it would make much difference in the end.  I would, however, have liked to give this team the best chance possible to pull out a wildcard win and if the game is close he is a big asset.

 

I really think this comes down to whether you want to play the long or short game.  I get that we have been playing the long game forever and some success was needed but for me I still like what the FO did.  I like Watson's potential and the potential we can buy with $500,000 in international money.  In the end things worked out and the team made the post season and will have a measure of success.  To me it looks like a win, win.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

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?

I didn't check but I doubt it, as the NL had 16 teams for the bulk of that time.

[USAFChief]

It was a team 3 games under .500, with a far worse Pythagorean W/L, coming off a 100-loss season. To make their playoff run, they needed to play .600 ball while EVERY OTHER TEAM in the league (sans the 4 clearly superior playoff squads) to completely folded.

 

If you had faith in the Twins' ability to do this, as a fan, then I commend you. But there was no real reason for a front office to foresee this outcome based on a rational analysis. It's literally one of the first times something like this has ever happened. I hope (and trust) that in the future they'll continue to make decisions on the same basis.

 

If they would've sunk the team's chances I would get this argument, but they didn't, not even close! The Twins still walked away with this thing, and not having Kintzler or Garcia won't be the reason they fail to advance.

 

You can't really give them credit for seeing the reality of the hopeless position they were in, thereby justifying dumping at the deadline...

 

And then turn around and give them credit for "not sinking their chances."

 

There is no doubt they weakened the team at the deadline. They not only didn't add, they subtracted. The idea they aren't worse off for not having Kintzler is pretty far fetched.

 

They erred. It's ok to say do.

[USAFChief]

I say no. Would having Kintzler on this team be enough to make a difference in whether we win the WS this season? I think not. Would we have re-signed Kintzler? I doubt it. Now, I'm not saying I expect Watson to become the next Corey Kluber but it's likely he will contribute more to the Twins in the course of his time with the organization than Kintzler would have contributed here in 2 months.

In retrospect it is obvious to me that Falvine's decision not to become significant buyers before the deadline was the correct one. Now, no-one knew that Cleveland would run up a win streak of historic proportions but as it turned out going all-in for the short term at the deadline would have, AT BEST, changed the venue of the WC game. And it would have put a serious dent in the medium term and long term.

I think not being significant buyers at the deadline was clearly wrong in the short term, and likely wrong in the long term.

 

It merely delayed the need to acquire pitching, not avoided it. They will still need to do it.

 

And we missed the benefits of such acquisitions in 2017.

 

Verlander, for example, was a missed opportunity, and one they didn't even try.