Minnesota Twins: Luckiest team in baseball.

[TooLiveBrew]

The luck thing holds less water the longer the timespan.

 

"Well-run" does not disqualify a team from being lucky. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The Twins have had some good talent, but certainly no behemoths until recently (imho Morneau & Mauer are the two best position players to come out of that system in the past decade or so). I think the Twins had more than their share of good luck in the regular season, and probably an undue amount of bad luck in the postseason. I don't see why it has to be 'lucky' vs. 'well-run'... I think it's both, but many people adhere to the belief that you create your own luck, so now my head is spinning.

 

 

EDIT: For a little gardenburger to my argument (in honor of Prince, no meat)...

 

2002: 94-67, AL Central Champs (+ 8 Pythag.; 103 team OPS+, 108 team ERA+)

2003: 90-72, AL Central Champs (+5 Pythag.; 102 OPS+, 103 ERA+)

2004: 92-70, AL Central Champs (+5 Pythag.; 95 OPS+, 117 ERA+)

2005: 83-79, 3d place AL Central (-1 Pythag.; 88 OPS+, 119 ERA+)

2006: 96-66, AL Central Champs (+3 Pythag.; 101 OPS+, 113 ERA+)

 

Nothing overwhelming in there offensively, but obviously some lights-out pitching from 2004-'06. I think that, typically, 90+ win teams have better than league-avg. offense... which is where the idea that the Twins had some good luck in the regular season comes in. But I have to check into that theory some more before I can say whether or not it appears to hold up.

[Fatter than Joey]

I don't see why it has to be 'lucky' vs. 'well-run'... I think it's both

 

I don't.

 

I think you can be "lucky" and "well-run" for small periods of time, but as that time-span gets longer *cough* Rickie Weeks *cough*, the good and bad luck is going to wash itself out.

 

If you want to say that the Twins got lucky this weekend -- fine. I don't think though you can claim that the Twins have been lucky for the last 5 years.

[TooLiveBrew]

What does Rickie Weeks have anything to do with this?

 

I think the Twins have had some nice good luck over the timespan I cited above. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It doesn't make them a franchise that wasn't run quite well.

[TwinsBrewersWorldSeries]

This has nothing to do with luck. It has everything to do with the Twins having perhaps the best GM in baseball for the past decade. Granted, he's now out of the fold but alot of those moves will still be a factor for years.

[homer]

I'd be curious to see the Twins team stats on the so called 'clutch' stats the last five years. (i.e. BA with RISP, etc.) and how that differs from their overall stats.

[Fatter than Joey]

For a little gardenburger to my argument

 

Perhaps Gardenhire? -- I would think this is better evidence of good managing.

 

What does Rickie Weeks have anything to do with this?

 

Nothing, I was clearing my throat....

 

I think the Twins have had some nice good luck over the timespan I cited above. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

I'm sure they have had good luck.... and bad... over time luck gets washed out and is not a factor. That's sort of the ground rules of using luck based arguments, if it is demonstrated over a large sample, it's probably more of a skill than chance.

 

It doesn't make them a franchise that wasn't run quite well.

 

I hear you.

[danzig6767]

The luck thing holds less water the longer the timespan.

 

"Well-run" does not disqualify a team from being lucky. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The Twins have had some good talent, but certainly no behemoths until recently (imho Morneau & Mauer are the two best position players to come out of that system in the past decade or so). I think the Twins had more than their share of good luck in the regular season, and probably an undue amount of bad luck in the postseason. I don't see why it has to be 'lucky' vs. 'well-run'... I think it's both, but many people adhere to the belief that you create your own luck, so now my head is spinning.

 

 

EDIT: For a little gardenburger to my argument (in honor of Prince, no meat)...

 

2002: 94-67, AL Central Champs (+ 8 Pythag.; 103 team OPS+, 108 team ERA+)

2003: 90-72, AL Central Champs (+5 Pythag.; 102 OPS+, 103 ERA+)

2004: 92-70, AL Central Champs (+5 Pythag.; 95 OPS+, 117 ERA+)

2005: 83-79, 3d place AL Central (-1 Pythag.; 88 OPS+, 119 ERA+)

2006: 96-66, AL Central Champs (+3 Pythag.; 101 OPS+, 113 ERA+)

 

Nothing overwhelming in there offensively, but obviously some lights-out pitching from 2004-'06. I think that, typically, 90+ win teams have better than league-avg. offense... which is where the idea that the Twins had some good luck in the regular season comes in. But I have to check into that theory some more before I can say whether or not it appears to hold up.

 

I can buy a team being somewhat lucky over a season, but when you average about 90 wins over five straight years, i'm not putting much stock into luck being a factor.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

I'm sure they have had good luck.... and bad... over time luck gets washed out and is not a factor.

 

Yes, I'd point to their postseason WOAHs as a good indicator of this. I'm quite aware of luck related to sample size. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

 

I'd be curious to see the Twins team stats on the so called 'clutch' stats the last five years. (i.e. BA with RISP, etc.) and how that differs from their overall stats

 

I'll just use OPS+ so I don't have to type out 4-part batting lines for these scenarios/settings:

 

2002: 103 OPS+ // 94 OPS+ w/RISP // 102 OPS+ w/RISP, 2 outs

2003: 102 // 92 // 97

2004: 95 // 106 // 92

2005: 88 // 99 // 106

2006: 101 // 110 // 118

 

Record in 1-run games // Extra Innings:

2002: 29-16 // 10-4

2003: 22-20 // 9-8

2004: 24-16 // 13-8

2005: 27-30 // 16-9 (**CWS 35-19 in 1-run games, 13-8 Extras! Wow.)

2006: 20-11 // 10-4

 

 

EDIT: I can buy a team being somewhat lucky over a season, but when you average about 90 wins over five straight years, i'm not putting much stock into luck being a factor.

 

I wonder what people think about the Twins having the *worst* (not bad) W-L tallies in the seasons where their 1-run game record was average or so, combined with so-so performance with RISP & RISP + 2 outs. Honest question.

[danzig6767]

EDIT: I can buy a team being somewhat lucky over a season, but when you average about 90 wins over five straight years, i'm not putting much stock into luck being a factor.

 

I wonder what people think about the Twins having the *worst* (not bad) W-L tallies in the seasons where their 1-run game record was average or so, combined with so-so performance with RISP & RISP + 2 outs. Honest question.

If i remember correctly, the Twins had very good bullpens during that 5ish year stretch and while i have absolutely no stats to back this up, i'd assume that teams with good bullpens tend to fair better in those tight one run games than teams with shaky bullpens. Now i do know the Brewers have a good record in one run games this year while not having a great pen, but my assumption is based on an in general thing with good pens and 1 run winning.

 

[dvoiss]

I'd say you tip your cap to them.

 

Agreed 100% -- The luck thing holds less water the longer the timespan.

Exactly. How can a team get lucky and have six straight winning seasons? I don't care what division you are in that's pretty impressive considering what their payroll has looked like over that period of time. Everybody talks about the great job they do in Oakland with moneyball and then they turn around and blast the Twins.Seems ridiculous to me. .

[TooLiveBrew]

It's not that they weren't talented -- they were. I think they were both lucky & good... nothing wrong with that! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Also, I think the term "Moneyball" has transmuted into "Amazing GM'ing!", which is not necessarily what the book showed about Beane & the A's. I think Beane has done a good job in Oakland, but I thought Alderson (his mentor) did an even better job. The Twins, likewise, have been run in a savvy manner for some time now.

 

 

i'd assume that teams with good bullpens tend to fair better in those tight one run games than teams with shaky bullpens.

 

I've long wondered this myself. I'll have time to check into this in another hour or so, and plan on doing so. I'll just use ERA+ for a crude analysis again. If anyone else wants to take the reins on that one, feel free.

[Fatter than Joey]

Yes, I'd point to their postseason WOAHs as a good indicator of this.

 

You are saying a dozen playoff games cancel out hundreds of regular games?

 

I'm quite aware of luck related to sample size.

 

Huh, I just don't think you are http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif -- I don't want to seem snarky, but over the course of 6-8 seasons the good and bad luck is going to even itself out, at least to the point where the net luck, be it good or bad is non-significant -- If it doesn't it's probably a skill.

[dadofandrew]

I just ran some numbers and could find no correlation at all. In fact, some of the unluckiest teams this year have excellent bullpens and hit well with RISP.

 

I'd say it's almost entirely good fortune.

[TooLiveBrew]

You are saying a dozen playoff games cancel out hundreds of regular games?

 

Sheesh, it's an example. I didn't say it did that. Maybe you can find me a link to the definition of how luck evens itself out? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

 

Anyway, I took a look at the ERA+ for the Twins' bullpens, and to be honest I don't see how it's comparable. According to B-R.com's Play Index, the bullpen ERA+ for 2004, for example, is 87, while the starters' was 93. How that correlates to their overall 117 ERA+ I have no idea. Oh, for clarity, that'd be the bullpen that had Nathan (292 ERA+), Crain (236 -- 27.2 IP), Rincon (180), Romero (135), & Roa (105). I really don't see how that can be negated by < 100 IP from other, less effective relief pitchers.

 

Sorry, but someone that has a better grasp on the numbers will have to investigate the bullpens. I thought I could figure it out, but this initial roadblock really puzzles me.

 

Twins B-R.com 2004 team page

Twins 2004 pitching splits page

 

I bet the thing I'm missing will be really simple & embarassing...

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I don't see where the AL Central is weak. The Twins have been putting up 90+ win seasons for most of the 2000's. Losing in the first round proves nothing about the AL Central.

The Twins finished 9 games ahead of the White Sox in 2004. They finished 4 games ahead in 2003. They finished 13.5 games ahead in 2002. Is that a characteristic of a competitive and strong division? I don't think so.

 

If you go back and read my previous posts, I did say that the Twins have a good team and have done a nice job. The whole point of me starting this thread was to make the argument that they have gotten a lot of breaks along the way.

 

I don't see why it has to be 'lucky' vs. 'well-run'... I think it's both

That is exactly my line of thinking as well.

I'd be curious to see the Twins team stats on the so called 'clutch' stats the last five years. (i.e. BA with RISP, etc.) and how that differs from their overall stats.

I'm sure it's high enough to drive the Sabremetric people nuts.

[TooLiveBrew]

Well you could just look at my post on that instead of trying to goad others.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Well you could just look at my post on that instead of trying to goad others.

Yeah I haven't checked the site last night so I had to respond to some disagreements I had from posts throughout the day. Sorry for the overlap on your stuff. I am in complete agreement with your posts.

[TooLiveBrew]

Sorry man. I was a tad pissy after a tough loss. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Sorry. I don't want to be abrasive.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I think this article pretty much sums up the reason I started this thread:

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8308750/Twins'-surprise-run-built-on-shaky-foundation

[Oldcity]

I don't agree with the idea that luck evens out over the course of a season. I think that's mainly something Bill says when Prince drops a pop up double down the line. The Diamondbacks were lucky all of last season and it never caught up with them.

 

FtJ also mentioned Weeks while clearing his throat, and I'm assuming he was implying that Weeks can't use luck as an excuse anymore? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

However, I disagree because Rickie's BABIP is still way, way below his career average.

[TooLiveBrew]

The comments that follow that article are absurd. Perry wrote a decent objective investigative (at least re. stats) piece, and the FANZ!1! can't seem to stomach a bit of critique.

 

No one is really addressing the points in the article, just that 'Perryz a idiot and only lvoez big marketz!'

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I'm just saying that even some baseball experts see my point of view so I wasn't just throwing it out there off the wall.

[TooLiveBrew]

Oh, of course. But then again, we agree on the Twins to some extent. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

Perry is by no means a guy I 'like', but in this case the criticisms of him in the comments were almost exclusively ad hominem.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

The Twins finally lost some of their luck and lost a 1-0 game to the Red Sox after getting shut down by Dice-K for 7 innings. The tables are turning!

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

So the Brewers and Twins have identical 52-43 records going into the All-Star break. Any predictions as to which team finishes with the better record?

 

I say the Brewers finish at 88 wins and the Twins finish at 82 wins.