Article: Falvine Ready To Flex Muscles

[Kelly Vance]

 

"...The playoff run was surprising."  Maybe when viewed from the perspective of last March, but by July they had been in the hunt for a playoff spot since day 1 of the season, and one week in late July doesn't change that equation.  Falvine didn't just wake up one morning in late July, read the STrib, and discover "Holy cow...we're IN this??"  In fact, they traded FOR help one week earlier.

 

"...it's not like we didn't make the playoffs."  This is not a point in favor of your argument, or in favor of Falvine's actions.  This is a point AGAINST their actions.  The fact they made the postseason in spite of Falvine trading away pitching is just more proof they misread the situation badly.  They clearly should have been trying to boost the team's chances, not reduce them.

 

"...did we lose games we would have won with Jaime or Kinz?"   This is after the fact reasoning, and also completely misses the point.  

 

"...Houston or Cleveland would have ousted us..."  Again, completely misses the point.

 

The bottom line is...Falvine misread the situation, and traded from, not to, a team in contention for the postseason.  That's a mistake, and I believe they both would privately admit the same.  

I am not missing the point.  The thing you are missing is that it didn't really matter. Maybe Twins are WC 1 instead of WC 2. They still would have played the Yankees in the WC game. They would have never caught Cleveland. When they punted on Kinz, they had a really tough run where they played the Dodgers and Cleveland and lost ground. So the FO did what they thought best to help the team long term. That is their job.

Edited December 4, 2017 by ashburyjohn

[USAFChief]

 

I am not missing the point.  The thing you are missing is that it didn't really matter. Maybe Twins are WC 1 instead of WC 2. They still would have played the Yankees in the WC game. They would have never caught Cleveland. When they punted on Kinz, they had a really tough run where they played the Dodgers and Cleveland and lost ground. So the FO did what they thought best to help the team long term. That is their job.

Whether or not the Twins actually won the 2nd WC, or didn't, is NOT the point.  

 

The point is, they were in contention, should have recognized that, and didn't.  That's what ultimately matters.

 

 

[jimmer]

 

Yes, they added and then subtracted but correct me if I'm wrong...at the time of the trade (Garcia and Kintzler), wasn't there only a four percent chance of making the playoffs?

If there was, how can anyone call that contention? It's not even close. 50% can go either way. 4% you have to play way above and beyond what you have been AND have everyone else start playing worse or at least not add ground on you. They ended up doing that, but how can one be mad at a 4% chance? That run wasn't expected by anyone.

If they didn't make the playoffs people would have thought they were crazy to not move those two and possibly Santana. They would have looked foolish for hanging on to the free agents to be, for sure.

I'm perfectly fine with what they did because I didn't expect a miracle which is what 4% to 100% is with only 2-ish months to go and several teams to fight for the one open playoff spot. That was a miracle. I don't expect miracles and I'm surprised so many others do.

I don't know what their percentage was when they acquired Garcia, so maybe that was a mistake and they corrected that mistake by getting rid of him when they had so little of a shot. So if people are upset about the quick pivot from adding to subtracting, I can understand that. But to think this team was a playoff contender when they only had a 4% chance, that confuses the heck out of me.

The Twins were 9th in the AL in scoring at the break while being last in pitching and they went 10-15 in July after going 14-15 in June.

 

Stands to reason that the Twins FO should have known that the team would make the playoffs when they were 50-53, and then they should have acted accordingly. 

 

Nothing outrageous about that kind of thinking ;-)

Edited December 4, 2017 by jimmer

[old nurse]

There is contending, then there is the realistic chance of doing well in the playoffs.  2-5 against Boston, 7-12 against Cleveland,  1-5 against Houston,  2-4 against the Yankees, and horrible against the Dodgers during the regular season.  The arguments for they should have done more for contending seem nitpicky.   What would have the Twins have to have added to be a contender past the wild card game? A front line starter, a middle of rotation starter,  a couple of set up men.  The wild card game comes down to is your starter on that day or not.  The divisional rounds take more than that. Without trading the mlb position players they did not have anything to trade for the front line starter. 

 

[old nurse]

They also needed another bat

[Kelly Vance]

 

Whether or not the Twins actually won the 2nd WC, or didn't, is NOT the point.  

 

My point is that even if they kept Garcia and Kinz, they were at best a WC 1. So it makes no difference whether they made these moves or not. They would have still, at best, ended up in the WC game. Like I said, it made no difference. Except that what the FO did was collect more money and get two other almost ready major league arms. To me, and others, that was a far sighted set of moves, not just a couple of mistakes.

Edited December 5, 2017 by ChiTownTwinsFan

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The Twins were 9th in the AL in scoring at the break while being last in pitching and they went 10-15 in July after going 14-15 in June.

 

Stands to reason that the Twins FO should have known that the team would make the playoffs when they were 50-53, and then they should have acted accordingly. 

 

Nothing outrageous about that kind of thinking ;-)

The schedule was going to get easier, and this information was known ahead of time.

[prouster]

My point is that even if they kept Garcia and Kinz, they were at best a WC 1. So it makes no difference whether they made these moves or not. They would have still, at best, ended up in the WC game. Like I said, it made no difference. Except that what the FO did was collect more money and get two other almost ready major league arms. To me, and others, that was a far sighted set of moves, not just a couple of mistakes.

And even then, they'd have needed something like six more wins to catch up to the Yankees. It seems incredibly unlikely that Garcia and Kintzler would have been enough to make up that much ground.

[prouster]

The schedule was going to get easier, and this information was known ahead of time.

I don't know. A ton of things went right that needed to in order to even stay in the WC race, let alone win a playoff spot. If Falvey and Levine could have foreseen what actually happened, they should be working on Wall Street and not in baseball.

[gunnarthor]

 

I don't know. A ton of things went right that needed to in order to even stay in the WC race, let alone win a playoff spot. If Falvey and Levine could have foreseen what actually happened, they should be working on Wall Street and not in baseball.

I disagree. I want our new FO to be smarter than fangraphs baseruns. I think the CYA approach a lot are giving them here is based on what we as fans without internal knowledge knew or should have known. We did lose the WC game so trading Kinztler didn't hurt us in that game. But I think that misses the point. We weakened our bullpen by trading him and got back a C prospect. Since we made the playoffs, what were our chances of winning a one gamer? 33%? 45%? And if we did, would having a stronger bullpen been something we would have wanted in the playoffs even if in that one game it didn't matter? The FO hurt us in 2017, full stop. How much they hurt us is open for debate and how much they helped improve future years is open to debate. I'm certainly willing to give them more time but at best you can only give them an incomplete.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I don't know. A ton of things went right that needed to in order to even stay in the WC race, let alone win a playoff spot. If Falvey and Levine could have foreseen what actually happened, they should be working on Wall Street and not in baseball.

I respect that people disagree, but all I said was that the Twins schedule was about to get easier. What I hear you (and others) saying is that Falvey did not have the judgment to forsee this.

[USAFChief]

 

I don't know. A ton of things went right that needed to in order to even stay in the WC race, let alone win a playoff spot. If Falvey and Levine could have foreseen what actually happened, they should be working on Wall Street and not in baseball.

A lot of those things had been going right from April 1st to late July. There was no need to try to guess whether or not the Twins were in a chase for a playoff spot.  They clearly were, and had been all season. 

 

Things would have had to go wrong for them NOT to stay in contention, rather than the other way around.

[Doomtints]

All this muscle flexing is making me dizzy!

 

[prouster]

 

A lot of those things had been going right from April 1st to late July. There was no need to try to guess whether or not the Twins were in a chase for a playoff spot.  They clearly were, and had been all season. 

 

Things would have had to go wrong for them NOT to stay in contention, rather than the other way around.

 

That's actually not true. On July 31st, the Twins were 6.5 games out of first place, 4 games behind the Royals for second in the division, and in addition to KC were behind the Orioles, Rays, Mariners, and Red Sox for a Wild Card spot. Their playoff odds were 5.6%.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/coolstandings.aspx?type=2&lg=div&date=2017-07-31

 

To suggest that on July 31st a playoff spot was an obvious outcome is revisionist history.

Edited December 5, 2017 by prouster

[Doomtints]

 

 

 

To suggest that on July 31st a playoff spot was an obvious outcome is revisionist history.

 

 

He didn't say it was an obvious outcome, he said they were in the chase. Of the teams you mentioned, the Twins had been the most consistent so there was no reason to expect their luck to run out.

[prouster]

 

He didn't say it was an obvious outcome, he said they were in the chase. Of the teams you mentioned, the Twins had been the most consistent so there was no reason to expect their luck to run out.

 

The exact wording in the other post was that there "was no need to try to guess whether the Twins were in a chase for a playoff spot," because they "clearly were." To me, the conclusion is that a playoff spot is an obvious outcome—it should not have come as a surprise. (And not to be pedantic, but I didn't say the other poster "said" anything. I said they "suggested" something, if we want to argue semantics.)

 

I don't know what your definition of consistent is, but it must be different from mine. They hovered around the top of the division for the first two months before nosediving in July. They played extremely well in August, which got them back into the race. At the deadline, they were 4.5 games out of a Wild Card spot and needed to pass four teams to get it. Like I said in my other post, their playoff odds on that day were 5.6% according to Fangraphs. These are all facts, and in my opinion they all justify trading a couple of okay pitchers whose contracts were expiring two months later.

Edited December 5, 2017 by prouster

[USAFChief]

 

That's actually not true. On July 31st, the Twins were 6.5 games out of first place, 4 games behind the Royals for second in the division, and in addition to KC were behind the Orioles, Rays, Mariners, and Red Sox for a Wild Card spot. Their playoff odds were 5.6%.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/coolstandings.aspx?type=2&lg=div&date=2017-07-31

 

To suggest that on July 31st a playoff spot was an obvious outcome is revisionist history.

As noted above, I did not say a playoff spot was an obvious outcome.

 

I said they were clearly in the chase for a playoff spot.  Which they were, and had been all season.

 

As for Fangraph's "playoff odds"... well, let's just say that's a pretty dubious number.  Obviously.

[Winston Smith]

 

All this muscle flexing is making me dizzy!

 

Hope they are drinking plenty of fluids so they don't cramp up.

[prouster]

 

 

As for Fangraph's "playoff odds"... well, let's just say that's a pretty dubious number.  Obviously.

 

Why do you say that?

[jimmer]

That's actually not true. On July 31st, the Twins were 6.5 games out of first place, 4 games behind the Royals for second in the division, and in addition to KC were behind the Orioles, Rays, Mariners, and Red Sox for a Wild Card spot. Their playoff odds were 5.6%.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/coolstandings.aspx?type=2&lg=div&date=2017-07-31

 

To suggest that on July 31st a playoff spot was an obvious outcome is revisionist history.

and like I wrote earlier:

 

They were 14-15 in June and 10-15 in July. They were 50-53 at the trade deadline. At the break they were 9th in the AL in runs scored and last in the AL for pitching. If that is considered as a lot of stuff going right, its got to be comparitive. Like maybe compared to the Twins 2016.

Edited December 5, 2017 by jimmer

[Twins33]

The schedule was going to get easier, and this information was known ahead of time.

The way I read this, is that with an easier schedule they were guaranteed to win those easier games. How can anyone assume that?

 

I disagree because every team loses games they should actually be winning. There is no easy game in baseball.

 

I don't care who's in the FO, I don't expect a team who's playing .485 to start playing .603 the rest of the way. Not with this rotation and bullpen certainly, even if you add back Garcia and Kintzler. It's great that they did, but to expect it like it's 100% guaranteed AND it's 100% guaranteed that every team ahead of you blows it? Seems a bit too crazy to expect. If the Twins had a great rotation and bullpen, then it seems more reasonable, but if they had those things I would guess they would have done better in the first half than they did.

 

I don't think the FO deserves a grade one way or another yet. I'm fine with the incomplete someone gave them. I was completely fine with taking one year and seeing what you've got instead of firing and trading everyone like some wanted to do (not saying you're one of them because I don't know that). To me that seems perfectly normal and appropriate. It helped that the FA market wasn't good. I was fine with the deadline moves as well. I personally will be judging them from this offseason on.

[Twins33]

To add I think the biggest problem we have is that we disagree with what contention is. The Twins were .485 with a negative 72 run differential. Granted 1-2 teams absolutely crushed us, but those are still the numbers.

 

Of the AL teams ahead of us, only one had a negative run differential. It was the Royals at negative 1.

 

To expect the Twins to completely turn that around and other teams to belly up is too high of an expectation, especially expecting/knowing both were going to happen.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

To add I think the biggest problem we have is that we disagree with what contention is. The Twins were .485 with a negative 72 run differential. Granted 1-2 teams absolutely crushed us, but those are still the numbers.

Of the AL teams ahead of us, only one had a negative run differential. It was the Royals at negative 1.

To expect the Twins to completely turn that around and other teams to belly up is too high of an expectation, especially expecting/knowing both were going to happen.

Completely turn it around? The way I see it, the Twins were in first place in mid June and several games over .500 at various points in early July.

[gunnarthor]

 

To add I think the biggest problem we have is that we disagree with what contention is. The Twins were .485 with a negative 72 run differential. Granted 1-2 teams absolutely crushed us, but those are still the numbers.

Of the AL teams ahead of us, only one had a negative run differential. It was the Royals at negative 1.

To expect the Twins to completely turn that around and other teams to belly up is too high of an expectation, especially expecting/knowing both were going to happen.

Meh. Run differential, during the season, probably isn't all that predictive. We use it at the end of the season and it might be more useful but RD after 103 games? There's gotta be some room for error in that. We were 4.5 back of the Royals who we had a lot of games left against and who we were better than. They had a quick run in July that made them seem better than they were (9-0 run w/+ 40 run differential Det and Chicago). No one thought the Royals were all of a sudden a good team.

 

But again, that misses two points. First, do we expect our FO to be smarter than fangraphs? Second, the question, as I understand it, was whether the FO helped the team this year. I think we can agree that by selling off Garcia and especially Kintzler, they hurt us by weakening two important parts of the team.  Maybe it helps in the long run but it made this year harder.

[nicksaviking]

The Twins are still on the sidelines this offseason so my patience is starting to wear thin but some of these arguments seem contradictory.

 

Yes the front office incorrectly believed the team was out of contention at the deadline, nearly everyone did, but I guess it's fair to say they were wrong on that front.

 

But the team improved when Kintzler and Garcia were removed from the club. Why weren't they right on that front then?

 

The bullpen was better after Kintzler was removed, and Kyle Gibson was re-inserted into the rotation after Garcia was dealt and he was the best starter down the stretch and better than Garcia. 

 

So the team was an extreme long-shot to make the playoffs and the front office gets demerits for not believing. Also an extreme long-shot was the fact that the team would improve without Kintzler and Garcia, including their direct replacements, but no credit is given on that front?

 

I mean for all we know, this team does not make the playoffs if they DON'T make those now unpopular moves.

[Twins33]

Completely turn it around? The way I see it, the Twins were in first place in mid June and several games over .500 at various points in early July.

  Which only brought them to a below .500 team once July was done. I still don't see how we can expect with certainty that this team would play .600 ball the rest of the season based on where they were and the pitching they had. And they only had one crazy month where they dominated, that was August. If they had played in August like the way most expected or as they had played in the first half (.500 ball or so), they miss the playoffs. They would barely miss it but still would have missed it. But then, again, you'd still have to be sure that the other teams would tank. They may have missed it by a lot more if that didn't happen.

 

 

Meh. Run differential, during the season, probably isn't all that predictive. We use it at the end of the season and it might be more useful but RD after 103 games? There's gotta be some room for error in that. We were 4.5 back of the Royals who we had a lot of games left against and who we were better than. They had a quick run in July that made them seem better than they were (9-0 run w/+ 40 run differential Det and Chicago). No one thought the Royals were all of a sudden a good team.

 

But again, that misses two points. First, do we expect our FO to be smarter than fangraphs? Second, the question, as I understand it, was whether the FO helped the team this year. I think we can agree that by selling off Garcia and especially Kintzler, they hurt us by weakening two important parts of the team.  Maybe it helps in the long run but it made this year harder.

Fangraphs or not, this team was below .500 at the deadline and had to pass many teams. Some people on this board expected them to pass those teams but I don't think that's a fair expectation in most years. Most years that many teams don't falter.

 

Yes, they should be smarter than any predictions/fangraphs but they don't have a crystal ball. Games aren't played on paper, we all agree on that. I just don't get the expectation that the easy teams are easy to beat. Any team can win on any given day even when they're terrible.

 

If the Twins would have kept those players and missed the playoffs the conversation would likely be the very different: Why didn't we trade the free agents to be? Why do we always hang on to players for too long and watch them walk instead of getting something for them? That usually applies to players that are non-FA but I've seen it applied to both.

 

I don't think Garcia contributes enough to completely change the outcome but I've never thought anything of him. Kintzler, might have helped more, but I'm ok with the trade. I'm ok with both of them.

[BK432]

 

The Twins are still on the sidelines this offseason so my patience is starting to wear thin but some of these arguments seem contradictory.

 

Yes the front office incorrectly believed the team was out of contention at the deadline, nearly everyone did, but I guess it's fair to say they were wrong on that front.

 

But the team improved when Kintzler and Garcia were removed from the club. Why weren't they right on that front then?

 

The bullpen was better after Kintzler was removed, and Kyle Gibson was re-inserted into the rotation after Garcia was dealt and he was the best starter down the stretch and better than Garcia. 

 

So the team was an extreme long-shot to make the playoffs and the front office gets demerits for not believing. Also an extreme long-shot was the fact that the team would improve without Kintzler and Garcia, including their direct replacements, but no credit is given on that front?

 

I mean for all we know, this team does not make the playoffs if they DON'T make those now unpopular moves.

 

Yes! This is exactly why this argument is completely fruitless. The performance the team received from their replacements was possibly better than what they would have gotten otherwise. Hard to know.

[Kelly Vance]

 

I disagree. I want our new FO to be smarter than fangraphs baseruns. I think the CYA approach a lot are giving them here is based on what we as fans without internal knowledge knew or should have known. We did lose the WC game so trading Kinztler didn't hurt us in that game. But I think that misses the point. We weakened our bullpen by trading him and got back a C prospect. Since we made the playoffs, what were our chances of winning a one gamer? 33%? 45%? And if we did, would having a stronger bullpen been something we would have wanted in the playoffs even if in that one game it didn't matter? The FO hurt us in 2017, full stop. How much they hurt us is open for debate and how much they helped improve future years is open to debate. I'm certainly willing to give them more time but at best you can only give them an incomplete.

Give them more time before what? You fire them? 

[gunnarthor]

 

Give them more time before what? You fire them? 

Before you can grade how good/bad they are as our new FO.

 

They've been given a golden opportunity here so the big question - at least to me - is if they can keep a window of opportunity open longer than others. One of the reasons I thought Ryan was very good was that he more or less kept a very low payroll team competitive for basically a decade. Levine has been gifted with an incredibly talented and young roster. The Twins are good. They're going to make the playoffs several times in the next few years. Can our new FO push them over the top? Can they keep that window open longer or are we going to fall back into a more traditional cycle of competitiveness? We won't know the answers for awhile. Their first draft was encouraging.

[Squirrel]

 

Before you can grade how good/bad they are as our new FO.

 

They've been given a golden opportunity here so the big question - at least to me - is if they can keep a window of opportunity open longer than others. One of the reasons I thought Ryan was very good was that he more or less kept a very low payroll team competitive for basically a decade. Levine has been gifted with an incredibly talented and young roster. The Twins are good. They're going to make the playoffs several times in the next few years. Can our new FO push them over the top? Can they keep that window open longer or are we going to fall back into a more traditional cycle of competitiveness? We won't know the answers for awhile. Their first draft was encouraging.

I think this is a very good perspective to have and one I share. I might have my own opinions of what actions I like/don't like in the short term, and that will always be the case whether or not the FO becomes successful. But for the long term, over all of will these guys be truly successful, that's not gonna happen over night and patience will be required. It seems as if they've spent a lot of time ... overhauling? ... the structure of how they want things to work from minor league development to analytics with getting people in place, hopefully now they can start pushing through a little harder so we see some real activity and results. This off-season has been so maddeningly slow for baseball over all because of Ohtani. Let's hope the upcoming winter meetings changes that.