Fine, but we're not in gray area. We're only in a gray area if you insist on 12.5% against much more realistic projections. The gray area you're fighting for is more like difference between 1% and 7%, which is a silly hill to die on IMO.

I am not insisting on any single thing, just pointing out there is a lot more context than the 1-2% number that is getting thrown around. Those same projections told us to sell at the deadline last year because the Royals were the favorites at that moment. Context can matter.

 

Down 7, but there's no one between us and Cleveland, we've got 7 games with them the next 2 weeks, and we're already 6-3 against them so far this season. 5-2 in that stretch and the lead would have been down to 4 games, with 7 weeks left, and still some more head to head.

 

Obviously not great odds, no. But you don't always have to be the favorite to take a chance, and reasonable people can disagree about where to draw that line.

 

(Another thing that I don't like about the odds is that they are focused on a single outcome. 10% odds to win might actually mean 20% odds to take it down to the wire, or maybe even 30-40% chance of taking it down to the last week or two, which -- not knowing the ultimate outcome at the time -- would still be very entertaining for many fans, and probably considered a rewarding experience by players and coaches. Again, obviously, a line has to be drawn and the front office is drawing it, but reasonable people can disagree.)

Traded. TD article here.

 

I am not insisting on any single thing, just pointing out there is a lot more context than the 1-2% number that is getting thrown around. Those same projections told us to sell at the deadline last year because the Royals were the favorites at that moment. Context can matter.

Down 7, but there's no one between us and Cleveland, we've got 7 games with them the next 2 weeks, and we're already 6-3 against them so far this season. 5-2 in that stretch and the lead would have been down to 4 games, with 7 weeks left, and still some more head to head.

Obviously not great odds, no. But you don't always have to be the favorite to take a chance, and reasonable people can disagree about where to draw that line.

(Another thing that I don't like about the odds is that they are focused on a single outcome. 10% odds to win might actually mean 20% odds to take it down to the wire, or maybe even 30-40% chance of taking it down to the last week or two, which -- not knowing the ultimate outcome at the time -- would still be very entertaining for many fans, and probably considered a rewarding experience by players and coaches. Again, obviously, a line has to be drawn and the front office is drawing it, but reasonable people can disagree.)

As usual, an extremely well-put post from spycake.

 

I'm not in love with selling but I understand it and reluctantly agree it's probably the right decision if you get a good return.

I am not insisting on any single thing, just pointing out there is a lot more context than the 1-2% number that is getting thrown around. Those same projections told us to sell at the deadline last year because the Royals were the favorites at that moment. Context can matter.

Down 7, but there's no one between us and Cleveland, we've got 7 games with them the next 2 weeks, and we're already 6-3 against them so far this season. 5-2 in that stretch and the lead would have been down to 4 games, with 7 weeks left, and still some more head to head.

Obviously not great odds, no. But you don't always have to be the favorite to take a chance, and reasonable people can disagree about where to draw that line.

(Another thing that I don't like about the odds is that they are focused on a single outcome. 10% odds to win might actually mean 20% odds to take it down to the wire, or maybe even 30-40% chance of taking it down to the last week or two, which -- not knowing the ultimate outcome at the time -- would still be very entertaining for many fans, and probably considered a rewarding experience by players and coaches. Again, obviously, a line has to be drawn and the front office is drawing it, but reasonable people can disagree.)

Concur.

If the only time you raise the pot is when you have the nuts, you’ll get blinded off long before the final table.

 

Obviously not great odds, no. But you don't always have to be the favorite to take a chance, and reasonable people can disagree about where to draw that line.

 

That's all fine and good, but we don't have time to see how those games with Cleveland play out.  We have to look at the more realistic odds as they stand today.  While it wouldn't be irrational to try, it's also not particularly sound gambling either.  

Trying to focus only on this Pressly trade in isolation, it doesn't seem like a bad deal. Hoping Houston isn't dumping their problem children on us.

 

Also, Burdi threw 100, so, yawn.

That's all fine and good, but we don't have time to see how those games with Cleveland play out.  We have to look at the more realistic odds as they stand today.  While it wouldn't be irrational to try, it's also not particularly sound gambling either.

 

You know, another way to look at it is to stay within 2 or 3 or 4 games going into the final week or two, and then try to make up the final difference in one furious stretch. This is what happened in 2009.

 

By that measure, the Twins are (or, were) very much in it.

Concur.

If the only time you raise the pot is when you have the nuts, you’ll get blinded off long before the final table.

If you’re holding a four and a ten, it’s possible you can win.

 

But holding on to that and doing it over and over again is a good way to lose over the length of a game.

 

Play the odds, especially if playing conservative gives you a better chance of winning the next tournament.

 

Again, not a big fan of selling here but it makes sense. I didn’t love the Escobar deal but I’m on board with the Pressly deal.

 

You know, another way to look at it is to stay within 2 or 3 or 4 games going into the final week or two, and then try to make up the final difference in one furious stretch. This is what happened in 2009.

By that measure, the Twins are (or, were) very much in it.

 

I just think people are still coming off the surge from last year and there seems to be a quiet expectation that the same thing is about to happen.  Maybe it does.  It still might, I don't think Escobar and Pressley make or break that.  

 

But we're not within 2 or 3 or 4 games,that's half of what the current deficit is.  So, I think it's important we keep in mind where we actually are, not what we hope we might be.

I came to peace with the idea of selling before we even hit July. 

 

I didn't want to trade any 2019 guys but... I guess I'll have to adjust. 

I just think people are still coming off the surge from last year and there seems to be a quiet expectation that the same thing is about to happen. Maybe it does. It still might, I don't think Escobar and Pressley make or break that.

Escobar was the heart and soul of this team, on that I agree with Molitor. There would be no clearer sign that the front office was quitting on the team (again) than to trade Escobar. He was their second best player this year.

But we're not within 2 or 3 or 4 games,that's half of what the current deficit is. So, I think it's important we keep in mind where we actually are, not what we hope we might be.

the Twins were 7 games back before tonight; in other words, only 4 games away from being 3 games back. In 2009 they had a 7 game deficit to make up -- in September. They got within 3 games going into the last week.

 

Escobar was the heart and soul of this team, on that I agree with Molitor. There would be no clearer sign that the front office was quitting on the team (again) than to trade Escobar. He was their second best player this year.
the Twins were 7 games back before tonight; in other words, only 4 games away from being 3 games back. In 2009 they had a 7 game deficit to make up -- in September. They got within 3 games going into the last week.

 

These are flukes.  You can't count on enormous surges to carry you. 

 

Saying they are 4 games back of being 4 games back is a misleading way to frame their current status.

Edited July 28, 20188 yr by TheLeviathan

These are flukes.  You can't count on enormous surges to carry you. 

 

Saying they are 4 games back of being 4 games back is a misleading way to frame their current status.

No more misleading than the “Fangraphs says 1percent chance!!1!” hokum I keep reading.

 

No more misleading than the “Fangraphs says 1percent chance!!1!” hokum I keep reading.

 

Did you know we're only 4 games from being 11 back?  Why would anyone buy when they are nearly 11 back? 

 

I don't see anyone pulling shenanigans like that and you'd be setting your hair on fire if they were.  It's the definition of misleading.

 

What fangraphs has is a statistical projection with no intent to reframe things other than through their model.  That's a very, very different thing.

Really like this trade . . . the front office clearly put a high price tag on Pressly and Houston paid it. In particular, I like that the Twins have picked up power arms to help supplement their position player focus in the draft.

 

The Twins are not a contender this year. There is always some remote chance, but the front office can't afford to behave like TD posters that tell them not to sell and then, if things fall apart, would jump on them for not selling. Internet posters get to revel in hindsight bias, but clubs have to make sound decisions in the moment.

 

There is no rational case that the Twins were/are a better team than the Indians. It's not even close. If anything, it's a bit fluky that the Indians don't have more of a division lead.

What fangraphs has is a statistical projection with no intent to reframe things other than through their model. 

What did their model say last year?

Really like this trade . . . the front office clearly put a high price tag on Pressly and Houston paid it. In particular, I like that the Twins have picked up power arms to help supplement their position player focus in the draft.

 

The Twins are not a contender this year. There is always some remote chance, but the front office can't afford to behave like TD posters that tell them not to sell and then, if things fall apart, would jump on them for not selling. Internet posters get to revel in hindsight bias, but clubs have to make sound decisions in the moment.

 

There is no rational case that the Twins were/are a better team than the Indians. It's not even close. If anything, it's a bit fluky that the Indians don't have more of a division lead.

You are absolutely wrong. If they did fall out I would not jump on them for not selling.

 

and by the way I think the Pressly and Escobar deals are two very different things

Edited July 28, 20188 yr by Hosken Bombo Disco

 

How can those guys prove themselves if they're never given the opportunity? Pressly himself wasn't all that impressive just last season. Hell, take a look at the transformation Gibson has made the past 12 months. Pitchers can improve.

 

Pitching well in Triple A may not equate to pitching well in the majors, but pitching poorly in the majors over small samples also doesn't disqualify a guy from ever becoming a good MLB pitcher. 

Never given the opportunity?  What have you seen from Busenitz that makes you think he's mlb ready?

 

What did their model say last year?

 

If you never trust a model because the odds don't play out 100% of the time, you wouldn't fly in an airplane ever, or drive a car, or ride a bike, or ever leave the house. You wouldn't eat food that you didn't grow yourself. Now, i don't THINK that was your point......but the FO needs to make a decision on a direction. They looked at the data, and the team, and the other teams, and made a decision based on likely outcomes. I think that's what we would generally want a FO to do.

 

Like they did at the beginning of the year, when they spent so much money, and tried to plug every hole on the roster.

 

 

Never given the opportunity?  What have you seen from Busenitz that makes you think he's mlb ready?

 

His numbers in 2017? His AAA numbers? He's pitched 13 innings this year and he's been yo-yo'd three times already.

His numbers in 2017? His AAA numbers? He's pitched 13 innings this year and he's been yo-yo'd three times already.

Which numbers in 2017? He had a sparkly ERA, but over 30 innings that's almost meaningless. The rest of his numbers were not good.

 

That said, he absolutely should get an extended shot. Belisle on this team is beyond any kind of defensible at this point.

If you never trust a model because the odds don't play out 100% of the time, you wouldn't fly in an airplane ever, or drive a car, or ride a bike, or ever leave the house. You wouldn't eat food that you didn't grow yourself. Now, i don't THINK that was your point......but the FO needs to make a decision on a direction. They looked at the data, and the team, and the other teams, and made a decision based on likely outcomes. I think that's what we would generally want a FO to do.

 

Like they did at the beginning of the year, when they spent so much money, and tried to plug every hole on the roster.

I wanted the pennant race, to see if they could make up ground with some of their best players coming back to action and some games against Cleveland coming up. I wanted two more months of potentially meaningful baseball. I wanted to see what happened. I haven't mentioned anything about airline safety -- see what I did there? -- or the postseason probability models anywhere in any of these threads.

 

Many of us wanted the pennant race. Others of us wanted to sell out. The front office wanted to sell. Fair enough.

But the front office doesn't have the same luxury we do. And, I clearly said that was an example, and that you might not actually be saying never trust models. Not sure how to be more even handed than saying that....

 

His numbers in 2017? His AAA numbers? He's pitched 13 innings this year and he's been yo-yo'd three times already.

Right, and there's a reason for that.  He hasn't performed at a MLB level...and neither has Matt Belilse, but the only thing Belilse has done well is strand inherited runners.  It seems like people make the assumption that the guys that are tearing it up in AAA will have MLB success.  That has not proven to be the case.  Now that we are in sell mode, yeah, bring them up.  We've thrown in the towel.  Let's see how they do.  One thing for sure - he needs to throw more than a fastball for strikes and miss more MLB bats.  If he can't do that, he wont ever be MLB ready.

All I’ve ever seen from Busenitz is an inability to miss bats. That’s not likely to improve with an extended stint. Indeed, it’s likely to expose him and he’ll get lit up like a Christmas tree.

I wanted the pennant race

Not to pick on you specifically, but I feel as though I'm watching some Stages Of Grief unfolding with regard to this failure of a season. First comes Denial, then Anger at the front office...

Not to pick on you specifically, but I feel as though I'm watching some Stages Of Grief unfolding with regard to this failure of a season. First comes Denial, then Anger at the front office...

That's how I've felt about the board the past two weeks.

Edited July 30, 20188 yr by Mike Sixel

Not to pick on you specifically, but I feel as though I'm watching some Stages Of Grief unfolding with regard to this failure of a season. First comes Denial, then Anger at the front office...

That was me in June! Not anger at the front office, but the players. Now I'm in acceptance, and stopped watching them play.

 

There's always next year!

Not to pick on you specifically, but I feel as though I'm watching some Stages Of Grief unfolding with regard to this failure of a season. First comes Denial, then Anger at the front office...

I've already killed my Snoopy avatar, if that's any indication

 

Look I knew it was bleak. But I wanted to see what happened. There are (or, were) signs that a nice run of baseball might happen. I've laid those out elsewhere. I was being optimistic. The front office was being realistic. I'm an irrational fan of my team. Esco was my guy. What can I say.

 

Mauer called the Escobar trade a "punch in the gut." He was right. The radio guys said the team left the Boston clubhouse after the game that night hurt and mad (I think that's what they said, or that was what was conveyed, anyway).

 

The "sell" crowd was wrong last year, no? And just as rabid?

I've already killed my Snoopy avatar, if that's any indication

 

Look I knew it was bleak. But I wanted to see what happened. There are (or, were) signs that a nice run of baseball might happen. I've laid those out elsewhere. I was being optimistic. The front office was being realistic. I'm an irrational fan of my team. Esco was my guy. What can I say.

 

Mauer called the Escobar trade a "punch in the gut." He was right. The radio guys said the team left the Boston clubhouse after the game that night hurt and mad (I think that's what they said, or that was what was conveyed, anyway).

 

The "sell" crowd was wrong last year, no? And just as rabid?

I understand and can be pretty irrational too I want all of my favorite teams to go for it, until it's nearly certain it's not going to happen that year. Common Man says it best, root for historically good, or biblically bad.

 

We've been waiting for a red hot stretch of baseball. A 10 game stretch where they win 9; a month where they win 2/3rds of their games. It hasn't been their year.