Are These Twins For Real?

[TheLeviathan]

2 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

Beating Tampa was good, Although after getting no-hit they do not look as good as I expected. But I will give you them as a good team we beat, but the White Sox at that point were without too many key players and were not playing well so I do not accept them as a Good Team that we beat - let's check out the next series with them.

The Twins were playing like garbage going into the ChiSox series as well.  The White Sox ARE a good team, playing the "how were they playing when we played them" game because an unwinnable condition for anyone that complicates everything.

[TheLeviathan]

41 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

Not entirely sure whether you're kind of agreeing, kind of disagreeing, both or neither? 

I agree that they can only play those teams that are on their schedule, but that's not what makes them real or not.  You've mentioned 9 of their 30 games.  I also agree that they've done a pretty nice job cobbling together a lineup and winning with it.  But that's part of taking advantage of a weak schedule in my book.  And they're doing that, but I'm not convinced that that makes them real either.

If the measure for every AL team is their schedule than the conclusion has to be that virtually no one in the AL or NL is for real.  The Yankees, Dodgers, Twins, Brewers, Rays, Cardinals, Padres, and several others are also "not for real".  The Mets, Angels, Astros, and Giants have had "meh" schedules.  So not for real too?  The Blue Jays and....(checks to be certain)...the Arizona Diamondbacks are the teams who are for real this year.

Or....maybe in a small sample like that using the schedule as such a major part of the argument is a flawed methodology.

[KirbyDome89]

5 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The Twins were playing like garbage going into the ChiSox series as well.  The White Sox ARE a good team, playing the "how were they playing when we played them" game because an unwinnable condition for anyone that complicates everything.

They're an even .500 and just the other night booted another 4 balls and coughed up a 6 run lead in the 9th. They've been sloppy, and awful for weeks now. We can sit here and talk about a future turnaround, but the reality is the ChiSox aren't a good team right now. Arguing that they are is the just the other side of the coin you seem to hate. 

[wsnydes]

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

If the measure for every AL team is their schedule than the conclusion has to be that virtually no one in the AL or NL is for real.  The Yankees, Dodgers, Twins, Brewers, Rays, Cardinals, Padres, and several others are also "not for real".  The Mets, Angels, Astros, and Giants have had "meh" schedules.  So not for real too?  The Blue Jays and....(checks to be certain)...the Arizona Diamondbacks are the teams who are for real this year.

Or....maybe in a small sample like that using the schedule as such a major part of the argument is a flawed methodology.

I guess that I'll put it this way.  Do you believe that the Twins stack up against the best teams in the league and have a legitimate chance to actually compete deep into the playoffs?  I do not.  Which is my measuring stick for being "real".  It has little to do with the schedule.  The schedule allows them to win a bunch of games because it is weak.  Just because they win 90+ games doesn't mean that they're a legitimate WS threat, just as a team winning in the mid 80s is not capable of being one.  That's been the problem since the playoff losing streak started.  They're good enough to win a bad division and that's about it.  So far, this season is just more of the same.  It's not their fault that the teams on their schedule aren't very good, but it is their fault that they can't go out and make a deep run in the playoffs.  Obviously the results of this season are yet to be determined, but I just see more of the same.

And I mentioned initially that I increased my expected win total largely because of the of the weak schedule has little bearing on whether I think this team is real.  It only factored into the fact that I thought they'd win more games because of it, and likely solidify a playoff spot in the process.    

[TheLeviathan]

6 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

They're an even .500 and just the other night booted another 4 balls and coughed up a 6 run lead in the 9th. They've been sloppy, and awful for weeks now. We can sit here and talk about a future turnaround, but the reality is the ChiSox aren't a good team right now. Arguing that they are is the just the other side of the coin you seem to hate. 

The Twins are a bad team because they don't have all sorts of injured players including their two superstars.  Since we have less injuries than them, we're actually worse than them so we beat a team better than us!  Logic!

Stacking the deck of an argument makes it so easy!

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, wsnydes said:

I guess that I'll put it this way.  Do you believe that the Twins stack up against the best teams in the league and have a legitimate chance to actually compete deep into the playoffs?  I do not.  Which is my measuring stick for being "real".  It has little to do with the schedule.  The schedule allows them to win a bunch of games because it is weak.  Just because they win 90+ games doesn't mean that they're a legitimate WS threat, just as a team winning in the mid 80s is not capable of being one.  That's been the problem since the playoff losing streak started.  They're good enough to win a bad division and that's about it.  So far, this season is just more of the same.  It's not their fault that the teams on their schedule aren't very good, but it is their fault that they can't go out and make a deep run in the playoffs.  Obviously the results of this season are yet to be determined, but I just see more of the same.

And I mentioned initially that I increased my expected win total largely because of the of the weak schedule has little bearing on whether I think this team is real.  It only factored into the fact that I thought they'd win more games because of it, and likely solidify a playoff spot in the process.    

It's too early for me to draw that conclusion.  This team is young and has had superstars hurt.  I'm not ready to draw conclusions...I'm taking issue with the assertions being made and the reasoning for it.

If you didn't want to put so much emphasis on the schedule you...shouldn't have put so much emphasis...on the schedule?

[Vanimal46]

Did people forget that the Twins were almost a 90 loss team last year? Now we’re entitled enough to define being real only if they beat the Dodgers and Yankees?

[Muppet]

I like to think the schedule loaded with highly beatable teams gives the Twins an opportunity to train, practice, and get better. By the time they need to face good teams, they'll be ready to rock. Those who aren't injured anyway. 

[wsnydes]

5 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

It's too early for me to draw that conclusion.  This team is young and has had superstars hurt.  I'm not ready to draw conclusions...I'm taking issue with the assertions being made and the reasoning for it.

If you didn't want to put so much emphasis on the schedule you...shouldn't have put so much emphasis...on the schedule?

It's fair to say that it's early to draw any conclusion.  I typically want a team to prove that they're real rather than assume they are in the first place.  So, in a sense, I haven't either.  But what I've seen so far has not shown to me that they're real.  I reserve the right to change my mind as the season progresses.

The context of my schedule comments, including the reference to @ashbury's comment, were that just because they win a bunch of games doesn't mean that they're real.  The last two sentences in the first paragraph of my first post actually says just that.  My second paragraph goes into what they'll face in the playoffs and how utterly lost they were in that situation.  I know that the lineup is beat up, I get it.  But that's part of the equation.

All I'm saying is that I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that this team can do any damage in the playoffs.  That's the measuring stick, not the schedule.

[wsnydes]

8 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Did people forget that the Twins were almost a 90 loss team last year? Now we’re entitled enough to define being real only if they beat the Dodgers and Yankees?

In my view, I guess it depends on how you define real.  

I can enjoy what they're doing without needing to classify whether they're real or not.  I can even acknowledge that they're playing well considering the circumstances that they've dealt with.  But real to me is being a legitimate contender, which I don't believe this team is.  I think that's reasonable.

[KirbyDome89]

6 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The Twins are a bad team because they don't have all sorts of injured players including their two superstars.  Since we have less injuries than them, we're actually worse than them so we beat a team better than us!  Logic!

Stacking the deck of an argument makes it so easy!

Sure, argue it into absurdity, as if the Sox haven't been tripping over themselves, and continue to wear them as a feather in your cap. 

[KirbyDome89]

11 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Did people forget that the Twins were almost a 90 loss team last year? Now we’re entitled enough to define being real only if they beat the Dodgers and Yankees?

Skepticism? We're 30 games deep and it's been relatively smooth waters. Entitled isn't a word that jumps to mind when thinking about Twins fans.

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, Muppet said:

I know baseball has changed. But can anybody imagine a team before 2000 that had a player as fast as Buxton who didn't even try to steal bases? Stealing bases does so much more than just advance a runner. It constrains the defense, throws off the pitcher, sparks offense, and excites crowds.

To be fair Buxton has only had 6 singles and 4 walks. So he's been on first only 10 times. I don't know if any of those also had a guy on second at the time as I'm not going to take the time to look that up, but 10 times isn't a lot of base stealing opportunities.

[TheLeviathan]

18 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

It's fair to say that it's early to draw any conclusion.  I typically want a team to prove that they're real rather than assume they are in the first place.  So, in a sense, I haven't either.  But what I've seen so far has not shown to me that they're real.  I reserve the right to change my mind as the season progresses.

The context of my schedule comments, including the reference to @ashbury's comment, were that just because they win a bunch of games doesn't mean that they're real.  The last two sentences in the first paragraph of my first post actually says just that.  My second paragraph goes into what they'll face in the playoffs and how utterly lost they were in that situation.  I know that the lineup is beat up, I get it.  But that's part of the equation.

All I'm saying is that I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that this team can do any damage in the playoffs.  That's the measuring stick, not the schedule.

Going with your gut is fine, I get that.  People citing the schedule have very clearly not looked at the context of that claim, that's what I'm pointing out.

Frankly, the sample is too small to draw much of any conclusions.  I only feel confident in mine: they've done pretty damn well through 20% of the season all things considered.

[TheLeviathan]

15 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Sure, argue it into absurdity, as if the Sox haven't been tripping over themselves, and continue to wear them as a feather in your cap. 

The point is highlighting the absurdity of declaring a team predicted to be a runaway division winner with 100 wins as easy victories based on a few weeks of bad play.  

You know, like if I declared the Orioles a good team that we split with because they've won series against the Yankees and Angels this season.  Cherry picking small samples is bullet-proof!

[wsnydes]

15 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Going with your gut is fine, I get that.  People citing the schedule have very clearly not looked at the context of that claim, that's what I'm pointing out.

Frankly, the sample is too small to draw much of any conclusions.  I only feel confident in mine: they've done pretty damn well through 20% of the season all things considered.

I guess that I don't feel that I emphasized the schedule as much as you took me to.  I was using it as a reference to winning a lot of games doesn't mean they're "real".  Anything beyond that context is not what was intended.

And I agree that they've done well all things considered and I'll definitely take it.  It's better than the opposite, that is for sure.

[chpettit19]

I'm going to go with "win a playoff series" as the context for "being real." The Braves showed last year that just getting in and giving yourself a shot is really the key, but I won't try to argue that with the Twins hanging onto an 18 game postseason losing streak. So I'll say if you win a series there's no reason you couldn't win 2 more in the playoffs.

With that being the definition I'm using I'll say I believe the Twins with their 26 best players healthy are "for real." Now I don't have a great deal of faith that they can get into October with their 26 best players healthy and that puts them on the border of being "real" for me.

As for the schedule argument, it's awfully hard to ever be "real" if your schedule is full of bad teams that you beat, and good teams you hang with, if beating bad teams doesn't give you any points. Especially when you've not exactly been at full strength for most of the time. Beating the bad teams shouldn't automatically make you "real," but it also can't just be ignored. The Dodgers don't win 100 games each year by simply winning 100 games against playoff teams. Beating the bad teams is part of being "real." Dominating the bad teams and playing .500ish against the good ones is a realistic outcome for "real contenders." The struggle with arguing that for the Twins is the 18 game postseason losing streak. Hard to convince people the team is different until the team does something different.

[KirbyDome89]

6 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The point is highlighting the absurdity of declaring a team predicted to be a runaway division winner with 100 wins as easy victories based on a few weeks of bad play.  

You know, like if I declared the Orioles a good team that we split with because they've won series against the Yankees and Angels this season.  Cherry picking small samples is bullet-proof!

We're 30 games in, everything (positive or negative) is a SSS Levi. 

I too expect Chicago to be better than this version, but that doesn't mean they haven't played like s*** the last few weeks, or that it's entirely irrelevant when talking about a favorable schedule to start the year. Over a 162 game schedule am I going to take the time or effort to look up things like that? No, but again, 30 games is all we've got so SSS reigns supreme, and that cuts both ways. Hell, there was an article about Ryan Jeffers being a top 5 catcher in baseball on the front page. 

I understand all teams bulk up by beating inferior opponents. I get that the AL looks to be more unbalanced than usual. I think the Twins got the softest part of their schedule out of the gate. You seem to disagree.

[Riverbrian]

My personal definition of "For Real" is meaningful baseball in September. 

I will not fall into the trap of thinking that the playoff results of 5 games diminishes the accomplishment of qualifying for the right to get hot come playoff time. 

With my personal definition of "For Real". 

I believe they are for real. The pitching depth is like nothing we've had in quite some time... if ever. That pitching will provide the offense the opportunity to win some games.  

 

[TheLeviathan]

3 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

I guess that I don't feel that I emphasized the schedule as much as you took me to.  I was using it as a reference to winning a lot of games doesn't mean they're "real".  Anything beyond that context is not what was intended.

And I agree that they've done well all things considered and I'll definitely take it.  It's better than the opposite, that is for sure.

But winning a bunch of games only happens by winning against bad teams a lot.  If playoff success is what ultimately matters (totally fine)...it might be worth remembering those are a vicious small sample too and our historically brutal recent past might have us all a bit extra skeptical 

[TheLeviathan]

3 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

We're 30 games in, everything (positive or negative) is a SSS Levi. 

I too expect Chicago to be better than this version, but that doesn't mean they haven't played like s*** the last few weeks, or that it's entirely irrelevant when talking about a favorable schedule to start the year. Over a 162 game schedule am I going to take the time or effort to look up things like that? No, but again, 30 games is all we've got so SSS reigns supreme, and that cuts both ways. Hell, there was an article about Ryan Jeffers being a top 5 catcher in baseball on the front page. 

I understand all teams bulk up by beating inferior opponents. I get that the AL looks to be more unbalanced than usual. I think the Twins got the softest part of their schedule out of the gate. You seem to disagree.

No one is forcing anyone to draw conclusions.  I'm not.

As for the rest: They are literally about to play an entire month of games against ridiculously putrid competition...by your own acknowledgment!!!!....and STILL the last 30 are the easy part?  

Please...digest that for a second and perhaps understand my frustration with the problems in your argument.

 

[KirbyDome89]

12 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

All I'm saying is that I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that this team can do any damage in the playoffs.  That's the measuring stick, not the schedule.

Agreed. 

I think perception is driven largely by record though, and schedule, particularly for the Twins, plays a role. You and I might agree that a 88-90 win Twins team might be out of their league come postseason play, but it's certainly going to draw ire from the "real," crowd. 

[KirbyDome89]

4 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

No one is forcing anyone to draw conclusions.  I'm not.

As for the rest: They are literally about to play an entire month of games against ridiculously putrid competition...by your own acknowledgment!!!!....and STILL the last 30 are the easy part?  

Please...digest that for a second and perhaps understand my frustration with the problems in your argument.

 

It's all being lumped together. The whole lot. All those games. Hopefully that part is settled. 

We come here of our own accord to do just that, draw conclusions. 

Hey, if you want to stamp SSS on every argument and invalidate it, be my guest, but unless we're drawing arbitrary lines, there's not gonna be much to talk about if that's the road we're traveling down. 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

They're an even .500 and just the other night booted another 4 balls and coughed up a 6 run lead in the 9th. They've been sloppy, and awful for weeks now. We can sit here and talk about a future turnaround, but the reality is the ChiSox aren't a good team right now. Arguing that they are is the just the other side of the coin you seem to hate. 

They have won 8 of their last 10 and they have a bunch of important players hurt.  So do a lot of teams but 8 of the last 10 with this many injuries is a team I would not be discounting.

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, KirbyDome89 said:

It's all being lumped together. The whole lot. All those games. Hopefully that part is settled. 

We come here of our own accord to do just that, draw conclusions. 

Hey, if you want to stamp SSS on every argument and invalidate it, be my guest, but unless we're drawing arbitrary lines, there's not gonna be much to talk about if that's the road we're traveling down. 

This response doesn't feel like you put a lot of time into digesting the problem. Your entire argument is that the first 30 games can be dismissed because the schedule was easy. Yet the next three weeks are even easier!

That's the reality of 2022 in the AL as we sit today.  I'd argue if the first 30 are at all atypical it may actually have been atypically difficult relative to the rest of the year.  You seem really resistant to actually examining if your "easy" declaration has any validity.

[wsnydes]

34 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

But winning a bunch of games only happens by winning against bad teams a lot.  If playoff success is what ultimately matters (totally fine)...it might be worth remembering those are a vicious small sample too and our historically brutal recent past might have us all a bit extra skeptical 

I don't think that's necessarily true, but it probably is in most cases.  I think there's a distinction in that a "real" team also wins a lot of games against average to good teams too.  

And I would agree that recent past has everyone skeptical.  In my particular case, I just see more of the same in this team and it's approach.  Which, given last season, I expected this season to be a stepping stone anyway.  

Edit: And keep in mind that I do think it's possible to be "real" while also playing a weak schedule.  To me, it really is all about how competitive a team will be in the playoffs.  

Edited May 11, 2022 by wsnydes

[mikelink45]

2 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

The Twins were playing like garbage going into the ChiSox series as well.  The White Sox ARE a good team, playing the "how were they playing when we played them" game because an unwinnable condition for anyone that complicates everything.

All I can say is that baseball is complicated.

[KirbyDome89]

21 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

This response doesn't feel like you put a lot of time into digesting the problem. Your entire argument is that the first 30 games can be dismissed because the schedule was easy. Yet the next three weeks are even easier!

That's the reality of 2022 in the AL as we sit today.  I'd argue if the first 30 are at all atypical it may actually have been atypically difficult relative to the rest of the year.  You seem really resistant to actually examining if your "easy" declaration has any validity.

Not dismissed, rather, taken with a grain of salt. Maybe that's the disconnect. Again, I've always counted the upcoming weeks as part of the start.

Can you point out other teams that have matched up this frequently in the first 45ish games with teams barreling towards 100 losses? Honestly Levi, they play a ton of games against the two worst teams in their own division (and all of baseball) and then they get another helping of the dregs of the AL West. The only other teams that could maybe claim something similar to that are STL and Milwaukee. We openly acknowledge the Central is a weak division but now that's suddenly irrelevant?

[TheLeviathan]

5 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Not dismissed, rather, taken with a grain of salt. Maybe that's the disconnect. Again, I've always counted the upcoming weeks as part of the start.

Can you point out other teams that have matched up this frequently in the first 45ish games with teams barreling towards 100 losses? Honestly Levi, they play a ton of games against the two worst teams in their own division (and all of baseball) and then they get another helping of the dregs of the AL West. The only other teams that could maybe claim something similar to that are STL and Milwaukee. We openly acknowledge the Central is a weak division but now that's suddenly irrelevant?

I don't know how you expect anyone to make a rational argument when your point somehow includes three weeks of games that haven't even been played yet.

[KirbyDome89]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

I don't know how you expect anyone to make a rational argument when your point somehow includes three weeks of games that haven't even been played yet.

Do you think Detroit, KC, and Oakland are anything other than terrible and pose any threat to sending the Twins into a tailspin? It's as simple as that. 

Weak division, lots of games against the 2 worst teams in said division + playing bottom feeders from other divisions = a soft start. I don't think we need more than surface level analysis here.