Article: AL Central Preview: Twins Rising, Indians Still Kings

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Those are two different stories about projections and predictions

In both, people like the Twins more than projection systems.

I think that's pretty common when projecting young teams with high ceilings.

 

Because at some point, if a young team is going to truly turn the corner, they're going to blow a projection wide open because the data points just don't exist for those players to improve by leaps and bounds simultaneously. On the other hand, live people can adjust expectations somewhat irrationally (but not necessarily incorrectly).

[Doomtints]

 

The Indians underacheived more than half the year. They showed how important pitching depth is. Still, their line up isn't better than ours. Interesting battle of top end arms vs depth and balance.

 

Cleveland both underachieved in the first half and overachieved down the stretch. They played a lot of crappy teams en route to a 22-game winning streak. Take that away and they're a 90-92 win team -- still a playoff team but not a true top seed (as evidenced by them being bounced out by the wild card team).

Edited March 28, 2018 by Doomtints

[jimmer]

Too many want to discount the Indians 22 game streak, saying they aren't as good as they are because that won't happen again, but then won't take into account how they under-performed early in the year.  It's like the people who discount Rockies hitters for inflated numbers (cause of the park they play in) and still slam Rockies pitchers for their number (not taking into account the park they pitch in)

 

In the AL the Indians were easily 1st in pitching, 3rd in offense and 4th in defense.  That kind of balance makes a team great.  They were the only team in the AL in the top 4 in all three categories.

 

Losing to a 91 win the Yankees in game five in a best of five series isn't proof that they aren't as good as their record says. It might be proof that things happen in short series and that playoffs don't really prove who the best team is.

Edited March 28, 2018 by jimmer

[gunnarthor]

This season sort of has a 2002-2004 feel. Every year we read about how the Twins weren't as good as either Cleveland or Chicago (and sometimes both). The Twins are young but they have some solid vets and no major weakness (save maybe manager). I think the Twins have a very real argument for the best player in the division if Buxton plays like I expect him to and I think their offense will be top 3 overall.

 

Cleveland has been great two years in a row but I really do think they'll have a bad year. They've played an awfully lot of games the last two years and finished with absolute Viking-level gut punches in both post-seasons. I just think that puts a toll on a team. If Buxton and Kepler and Berrios make the strides that we expect them to, we're pretty good.

 

(Of course, the Twins do have a chance of another 2016 disaster season. You can easily see a scenario where Buxton presses in April/May, Kepler doesn't improve, Sano/Rosario go to the DL, the fip of Ordozzi/Lynn/Santana catches up to them, Mauer falls off the cliff, Molitor does Molitor things, the FO folds early and trades away Dozier, Lynn, Morrison etc. But **** that. It's nearly opening day so be hopeful).

[Mr. Brooks]

Too many want to discount the Indians 22 game streak, saying they aren't as good as they are because that won't happen again, but then won't take into account how they under-performed early in the year. It's like the people who discount Rockies hitters for inflated numbers (cause of the park they play in) and still slam Rockies pitchers for their number (not taking into account the park they pitch in)

 

In the AL the Indians were easily 1st in pitching, 3rd in offense and 4th in defense. That kind of balance makes a team great. They were the only team in the AL in the top 4 in all three categories.

 

Losing to a 91 win the Yankees in game five in a best of five series isn't proof that they aren't as good as their record says. It might be proof that things happen in short series and that playoffs don't really prove who the best team is.

Especially since the Yankees are a really good team too.

[jimmer]

 

Especially since the Yankees are a really good team too.

Exactly.  And they came on strong the 2nd half. Putting the wild card label on them to diminish that reality doesn't really work.

Edited March 28, 2018 by jimmer

[Mike Sixel]

This season sort of has a 2002-2004 feel. Every year we read about how the Twins weren't as good as either Cleveland or Chicago (and sometimes both). The Twins are young but they have some solid vets and no major weakness (save maybe manager). I think the Twins have a very real argument for the best player in the division if Buxton plays like I expect him to and I think their offense will be top 3 overall.

 

Cleveland has been great two years in a row but I really do think they'll have a bad year. They've played an awfully lot of games the last two years and finished with absolute Viking-level gut punches in both post-seasons. I just think that puts a toll on a team. If Buxton and Kepler and Berrios make the strides that we expect them to, we're pretty good.

 

(Of course, the Twins do have a chance of another 2016 disaster season. You can easily see a scenario where Buxton presses in April/May, Kepler doesn't improve, Sano/Rosario go to the DL, the fip of Ordozzi/Lynn/Santana catches up to them, Mauer falls off the cliff, Molitor does Molitor things, the FO folds early and trades away Dozier, Lynn, Morrison etc. But **** that. It's nearly opening day so be hopeful).

Lindor says hello. His worst year is 4.4 WAR... His rookie year.

 

Ramirez put up an insane 6.6 last year.

 

Two White Sox put up over 4 last year.

 

Sure, Buxton could be better than all of them, but my money is on lindor. And Dozier.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Mike Sixel

[TheLeviathan]

 

Interesting. See, I have the Twins at 88 wins (and felt a little dicey on that prediction after the Polanco suspension). I have the Indians around 95 games.

 

I can see how people would land differently, though. Before the Polanco suspension, I would have put the Twins at 89 games and would have considered putting them at 90 if I was feeling optimistic. From there, it's not much of a jump to see them line up against Cleveland if, say, Kluber goes down.

 

Losing Polanco does hurt, but I don't think the Indians come anywhere close to 3rd in the AL in offense next year.  I also imagine their pitching (while still clearly the best in the AL) won't be quite so dominant.  They had the best ERA+ in the last century.  Odds are not good for repeating that.

 

I think the depth the Twins have in their lineup and their pitching staff makes up a lot of ground on the high-end pitching of the Indians.  But the Twins are a far shakier bet because there are still so many players we're unsure about.  

[jimmer]

Lindor says hello. His worst year is 4.4 WAR... His rookie year.

 

Ramirez put up an insane 6.6 last year.

 

Two White Sox put up over 4 last year.

 

Sure, Buxton could be better than all of them, but my money is on lindor. And Dozier.

yeah, at least for this season, Lindor for sure.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Too many want to discount the Indians 22 game streak, saying they aren't as good as they are because that won't happen again, but then won't take into account how they under-performed early in the year.  It's like the people who discount Rockies hitters for inflated numbers (cause of the park they play in) and still slam Rockies pitchers for their number (not taking into account the park they pitch in)

 

In the AL the Indians were easily 1st in pitching, 3rd in offense and 4th in defense.  That kind of balance makes a team great.  They were the only team in the AL in the top 4 in all three categories.

 

Losing to a 91 win the Yankees in game five in a best of five series isn't proof that they aren't as good as their record says. It might be proof that things happen in short series and that playoffs don't really prove who the best team is.

 

This is a reasonable take, but they've lost some players here (and to be fair, we really haven't), and I think there's more "primed for regression" candidates than what we have. Lots of guys had career years. Perhaps that continues for them, but it's also possible guys take steps back. I do tend to agree that Cleveland is (and should be) the favorite... as much as I hate that, but I tend to agree with Levi in that I don't think the gap is that large. I doubt they win 102, especially with a much stronger team here, not to mention a Chicago team that is talented enough to likely not be pushovers. I think Cleveland is a 95ish win team. I've said I think the Twins can win 95... Truthfully, that's my top end projection (probably more 92-95 and pre-Polanco) baring injuries of course.

 

Baring something catastrophic, it should be a good race. While Cleveland can (and should) be the favorite, this is a team that can surprise them and take them down. 

[gunnarthor]

 

Lindor says hello. His worst year is 4.4 WAR... His rookie year.

Ramirez put up an insane 6.6 last year.

Two White Sox put up over 4 last year.

Sure, Buxton could be better than all of them, but my money is on lindor. And Dozier.

Originally I was going to mention Lindor (easily my favorite non-Twin since Ichiro) but I didn't want to jinx it. He's pretty good.

[gunnarthor]

 

Last year Cleveland scored more runs than we did and had a better BA, OBP, SLG% and wRC+. And they have most of their players back.

Their rotation was and still is way better than ours as is their relief core.

Their defense was also better.

Can we win the division? Sure, cause this is sports; however, most of the time, 162 game schedules tell us the story if who the best teams are.

In fairness, Cleveland was third in runs, we were fourth. They outscored us by 3 runs. They were third in wRC+, we were fourth. They were second in wOBA, we were fourth. It's not exactly the impossible hill to climb to be better than them without much going right, frankly.

 

(Not sure how park factors play into this but it's probably not much since both teams have been, more or less, constructed for their home parks).

[jimmer]

 

In fairness, Cleveland was third in runs, we were fourth. They outscored us by 3 runs. They were third in wRC+, we were fourth. They were second in wOBA, we were fourth. It's not exactly the impossible hill to climb to be better than them without much going right, frankly.

 

(Not sure how park factors play into this but it's probably not much since both teams have been, more or less, constructed for their home parks).

Offensively, sure.  I don't disagree with that. But we aren't close to them in pitching and they are also better on D.