PDA

View Full Version : "I Still Do Not Like The Twins" - by an Indians fan.


FloridaTigers
03-24-2010, 09:38 PM
http://www.letsgotribe.com/2010/3/23/1386609/i-still-do-not-like-the-twins

However, this is something we all can agree on. I'm pretty sure we all can also agree that no matter how much we dislike each other, that every other AL Central team dislikes the Twins the most.

munchman33
03-24-2010, 10:10 PM
I could not have enjoyed that article more.

FloridaTigers
03-24-2010, 10:40 PM
Woah, a Dalek!? http://img3.harmony-central.com/acapella/ubb/love.gif

DSpivack
03-25-2010, 12:50 AM
Once upon a time I hated the Green Bay Packers, as my dad was once a Bears season ticket holder.

Once upon a time I loathed the New York Knicks, as they were a dirty team that were a speed bump in the spring for the Bulls.

Once upon a time I couldn't stand the Cleveland Indians, with their stacked lineup of sluggers and yearly dominance over any other Midwestern American teams.

Once upon a time I put on a tin foil hat and thought every mention of baseball in Chicago amongst the public and media was a slight against the Sox, and seethed at every mention of red, blue and baby bear.

Recently, however, none has been worse than a scrappy team who seems to somehow overachieve every single year. When a player skips town or heads to the injury list, it seems they always find a replacement out of nowhere to step up and perform. Thankfully, however, they're only a summer phenomenon, not a fall one.

They have become, however, my most hated team in sports.

Although my first memory of the World Series was when they took on the Atlanta Braves in 1991, and I was happy for them then, and liked Kirby Puckett. How times change [I was also a punk 7-year old who was a Cubs and Duke fan, so was a pretty daft as a wee lad].

g0g0
03-25-2010, 07:51 AM
This is just a compliment to MN. I can't hate a team that fields a good team mostly through the draft with less money than most teams.

SI1020
03-25-2010, 07:59 AM
Although I wanted to finish reading it, anything that hypes Pythagorean wins is a complete turnoff to me. There is no more worthless stat. For anyone who wants to jump on me for having this opinion first crown the 2005 Cleveland Indians AL Champs.

doublem23
03-25-2010, 08:23 AM
Although I wanted to finish reading it, anything that hypes Pythagorean wins is a complete turnoff to me. There is no more worthless stat. For anyone who wants to jump on me for having this opinion first crown the 2005 Cleveland Indians AL Champs.

EPIC :rolleyes:

Just like any other stat, Pythagorean W-L are a tool. Nobody in their right mind actually prefers it to wins. You know, just like you wouldn't say the guy with the best BA in the league is the best hitter, or just how the pitcher with the most wins isn't automatically the best pitcher, the team with the best Pythagorean W-L record isn't the best team, it's a tool to help analyze teams a bit deeper.

asindc
03-25-2010, 08:31 AM
EPIC :rolleyes:

Just like any other stat, Pythagorean W-L are a tool. Nobody in their right mind actually prefers it to wins. You know, just like you wouldn't say the guy with the best BA in the league is the best hitter, or just how the pitcher with the most wins isn't automatically the best pitcher, the team with the best Pythagorean W-L record isn't the best team, it's a tool to help analyze teams a bit deeper.

Actually, Pythagorean W-L record is worse than BA or # of wins for a pitcher in determining who is better since the latter two are at least based on past actual performance to some extent, while the Pythagorean is no more than an educated guess of future performance.

As for the topic at hand, I am not surprised. No AL Central fan I know likes the Twinkees. If they manage the same success outside the HumpDome, some of my disdain will diminish.

doublem23
03-25-2010, 08:51 AM
Actually, Pythagorean W-L record is worse than BA or # of wins for a pitcher in determining who is better since the latter two are at least based on past actual performance to some extent, while the Pythagorean is no more than an educated guess of future performance.

Do you know what Pythagorean W-L is? It's based simply on runs scored vs. runs allowed, if anything it is more pure than BA or pitcher's wins since it is solely based on the one stat that matters most in baseball... You got to score more than you give up to win.

I've never understood the vile for Pythagorean W-L, it's really a beautiful ans simple stat... Though mostly its from people who do not understand what it is or what people use it for (Hint: It's not a projection).

asindc
03-25-2010, 09:09 AM
Do you know what Pythagorean W-L is? It's based simply on runs scored vs. runs allowed, if anything it is more pure than BA or pitcher's wins since it is solely based on the one stat that matters most in baseball... You got to score more than you give up to win.

I've never understood the vile for Pythagorean W-L, it's really a beautiful ans simple stat... Though mostly its from people who do not understand what it is or what people use it for (Hint: It's not a projection).

Perhaps you might want to inform these guys of that:

http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2007/08/managers-and-pythagorean-projection.html

http://www.davidcornette.com/projection/explanation.html

http://www.math.ou.edu/~scrowell/jpcook.pdf

VenturaFan23
03-25-2010, 09:19 AM
I thought the Joe Buck comparison was great. :lol:

doublem23
03-25-2010, 10:01 AM
Perhaps you might want to inform these guys of that:

http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2007/08/managers-and-pythagorean-projection.html

http://www.davidcornette.com/projection/explanation.html

http://www.math.ou.edu/~scrowell/jpcook.pdf (http://www.math.ou.edu/%7Escrowell/jpcook.pdf)

Uh... :scratch:

I don't see any point when they simply use Pythagorean W-L as a pure projection... It is a tool in helping analyze teams a bit deeper than their surface, for example in the 2008 ALDS when the 100-win Angels, who over performed their Pythagorean W-L by 12 wins faced the 95-win Red Sox, whose Pythagorean W-L was also 95 wins. It was no surprise that the Red Sox, even with their worse record, were clearly the better team as they won the series easily 3-1.

Its like a team that is serious about contending would never consider giving meaningful playing time to a guy who, over the past three seasons, has hit .207/.304/.393. None of those stats are projections, but they are tools that can be used to help make better informed decisions about the future.

A small part of me believes that if Pythagorean W-L was just called something like W-L based on RS/RA it would be widely recognized for its value, but since it has a scary math name, all the cranky old farts have to rip it left and right because spreadsheets and slide rules and algebra are ruining baseball or something or other.

seventyseven
03-25-2010, 10:18 AM
My hatred for them really hit a peak level when I found out that the Metrodome superintendent (or something) really did turn on the fans to blow out when the Twins were up to bat in the 1987 and 1991 world series.

How strange that the Twins were only able to win games at home in both Series...

:angry:^100

asindc
03-25-2010, 10:22 AM
Uh... :scratch:

I don't see any point when they simply use Pythagorean W-L as a pure projection... It is a tool in helping analyze teams a bit deeper than their surface, for example in the 2008 ALDS when the 100-win Angels, who over performed their Pythagorean W-L by 12 wins faced the 95-win Red Sox, whose Pythagorean W-L was also 95 wins. It was no surprise that the Red Sox, even with their worse record, were clearly the better team as they won the series easily 3-1.

Its like a team that is serious about contending would never consider giving meaningful playing time to a guy who, over the past three seasons, has hit .207/.304/.393. None of those stats are projections, but they are tools that can be used to help make better informed decisions about the future.

A small part of me believes that if Pythagorean W-L was just called something like W-L based on RS/RA it would be widely recognized for its value, but since it has a scary math name, all the cranky old farts have to rip it left and right because spreadsheets and slide rules and algebra are ruining baseball or something or other.

So, two posts later, "not a projection" having been proven false, now the standard is its use as "a pure projection." Whatever. Some sabrmetricians use it as a projection model, whether 'purely' done or not.

Back on topic. I think Minny's ability to consistently surpass the consensus Pythagorean projections over several seasons can be attributed to the HumpDome. It has been the single biggest home field advantage in all of professional sports, let alone just baseball. That's why I am interested in seeing how they perform playing their home games in a real baseball park now.

goon
03-25-2010, 10:58 AM
My hatred for them really hit a peak level when I found out that the Metrodome superintendent (or something) really did turn on the fans to blow out when the Twins were up to bat in the 1987 and 1991 world series.

How strange that the Twins were only able to win games at home in both Series...

:angry:^100

No kidding? I always thought that was a rumor.

sullythered
03-25-2010, 11:24 AM
Uh... :scratch:

I don't see any point when they simply use Pythagorean W-L as a pure projection... It is a tool in helping analyze teams a bit deeper than their surface, for example in the 2008 ALDS when the 100-win Angels, who over performed their Pythagorean W-L by 12 wins faced the 95-win Red Sox, whose Pythagorean W-L was also 95 wins. It was no surprise that the Red Sox, even with their worse record, were clearly the better team as they won the series easily 3-1.

Its like a team that is serious about contending would never consider giving meaningful playing time to a guy who, over the past three seasons, has hit .207/.304/.393. None of those stats are projections, but they are tools that can be used to help make better informed decisions about the future.

A small part of me believes that if Pythagorean W-L was just called something like W-L based on RS/RA it would be widely recognized for its value, but since it has a scary math name, all the cranky old farts have to rip it left and right because spreadsheets and slide rules and algebra are ruining baseball or something or other.

No, it's because it's silly. If you want to use it as a tool, just call it run differential, and don't ascribe pretend wins and losses to it. Just do like they do in football, basketball, and hockey and list how many more points a team has scored than they're opponents. Only baseball people constantly feel the need to take it into the world of make-believe.

doublem23
03-25-2010, 11:33 AM
No, it's because it's silly. If you want to use it as a tool, just call it run differential, and don't ascribe pretend wins and losses to it. Just do like they do in football, basketball, and hockey and list how many more points a team has scored than they're opponents. Only baseball people constantly feel the need to take it into the world of make-believe.

Pythagorean W-L is RS vs. RA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's just modified so its convenient to compare to real W-L. But the only variables are RS and RA! BTW, you realize there are Pythagorean W-L formulas for basketball and football, too, right?

My 9-year-old cousin understand Pythagorean W-L and its pros and cons. It's not that complicated.

DSpivack
03-25-2010, 12:18 PM
Pythagorean W-L is RS vs. RA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's just modified so its convenient to compare to real W-L. But the only variables are RS and RA! BTW, you realize there are Pythagorean W-L formulas for basketball and football, too, right?

My 9-year-old cousin understand Pythagorean W-L and its pros and cons. It's not that complicated.

Eh, I've always thought it a bit overrated. Doesn't take into consideration variance in runs scored. Reminds me of the 2000-2004 Sox who could score 11 runs one game and then 1 the next. I'd like to see a stat similar to pythagorean runs, but with an element added as to how consistent the team's offenses are.

sullythered
03-25-2010, 12:22 PM
Pythagorean W-L is RS vs. RA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's just modified so its convenient to compare to real W-L. But the only variables are RS and RA! BTW, you realize there are Pythagorean W-L formulas for basketball and football, too, right?

My 9-year-old cousin understand Pythagorean W-L and its pros and cons. It's not that complicated.

I understand completely. No need for the exclamation points, nor the condescention. I'm saying, leave it at run differential. There is absolutely no reason to take the extra step and "calculate" wins and losses. Just looking at run differential tells you exactly the same thing without the extra superfluous step. And while things like Pythagorean W/L exists in other sports, you don't have near the level of reference that there is in baseball. If the same article was written about a football team, the writer would just say "Team A outscored their opponents by this much..." not "well they were 12 and 4, but only had 9 Pythagorean wins..." I don't discount stats, at all. VORP is a great tool of evaluation, for example. Its when we get into the ascribing of wins and losses that things get absurd.

doublem23
03-25-2010, 12:44 PM
I understand completely. No need for the exclamation points, nor the condescention. I'm saying, leave it at run differential. There is absolutely no reason to take the extra step and "calculate" wins and losses. Just looking at run differential tells you exactly the same thing without the extra superfluous step. And while things like Pythagorean W/L exists in other sports, you don't have near the level of reference that there is in baseball. If the same article was written about a football team, the writer would just say "Team A outscored their opponents by this much..." not "well they were 12 and 4, but only had 9 Pythagorean wins..." I don't discount stats, at all. VORP is a great tool of evaluation, for example. Its when we get into the ascribing of wins and losses that things get absurd.

:rolling:

Are you for real? VORP is terrible. The guys at B-R who created it have never revealed what they're even measuring. You're ripping on Pythagorean W-L because it's "make believe" when it's literally nothing more than RS v. RA and then you defend VORP, literally the most made-up stat in the entire world? :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

doublem23
03-25-2010, 12:52 PM
Eh, I've always thought it a bit overrated. Doesn't take into consideration variance in runs scored. Reminds me of the 2000-2004 Sox who could score 11 runs one game and then 1 the next. I'd like to see a stat similar to pythagorean runs, but with an element added as to how consistent the team's offenses are.

That's just your basic standard deviation, anyone with a college degree should be able to figure that out.

Pythagorean W-L has some flaws and shortcomings, anyone who understands it knows that, but I can't believe anyone who understands the stat and how it can be used could completely disregard it.

Thatguyoverthere
03-25-2010, 12:58 PM
I know the ALC all hates the Twins, but I always get the vibe that a lot of Tiger fans absolutely despise us. Whenever I check out Tigers boards, there is a lot of seething hatred for everything White Sox.

sullythered
03-25-2010, 01:19 PM
:rolling:

Are you for real? VORP is terrible. The guys at B-R who created it have never revealed what they're even measuring. You're ripping on Pythagorean W-L because it's "make believe" when it's literally nothing more than RS v. RA and then you defend VORP, literally the most made-up stat in the entire world? :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Jeez, you're being irritatingly abrasive today. My point wasn't to establish what is more "made up." I defend VORP because it is an effort to evaluate a player compared to the league average. At the very least, it is interesting. It has a point. Pythagorean W/L is just an unnecessary step. You are correct. It is nothing more than RS vs. RA. There is no reason to come up with fantasy wins and losses when the formula is the solution.

DSpivack
03-25-2010, 01:19 PM
That's just your basic standard deviation, anyone with a college degree should be able to figure that out.

Pythagorean W-L has some flaws and shortcomings, anyone who understands it knows that, but I can't believe anyone who understands the stat and how it can be used could completely disregard it.

Yes, but does such a stat for baseball exist?

asindc
03-25-2010, 01:52 PM
I know the ALC all hates the Twins, but I always get the vibe that a lot of Tiger fans absolutely despise us. Whenever I check out Tigers boards, there is a lot of seething hatred for everything White Sox.

I post at motownsports on occasions, and I would say Tigers fans' hate is probably divided about 40% Twinkees, 30% Sox, 10% Indians with the rest for the usual suspects (NYY, Boston, KC).

doublem23
03-25-2010, 02:01 PM
Jeez, you're being irritatingly abrasive today. My point wasn't to establish what is more "made up." I defend VORP because it is an effort to evaluate a player compared to the league average. At the very least, it is interesting. It has a point. Pythagorean W/L is just an unnecessary step. You are correct. It is nothing more than RS vs. RA. There is no reason to come up with fantasy wins and losses when the formula is the solution.

But VORP, for all you know, has absolutely no basis in reality. The guys at B-R could just be ranking guys based on nothing and then assigning arbitrary numbers to justify their ranks. There is literally no way to gauge VORP, understand what it measures. It is literally as worthless of a stat as you can get.

The reason for Pythagorean W-L is to translate RS v. RA so it can easily be gauged against actual W-L record. There is nothing made up about it, it takes a very important stat and just presents it in a convenient way. Saying a team scored 150 more runs than they allowed is nice, but saying that based on their RS/RA they should have won 95 games is better.

doublem23
03-25-2010, 02:04 PM
Yes, but does such a stat for baseball exist?

Well, standard deviation exists, but you're correct I'm surprised it's not cited as often as Pythagorean W-L. I'm guessing the reason is that standard deviation is a normal, real-life statistic and a lot of guys who work for B-R and such are also trying to stay on the cutting edge of Sabermetrics. Nobody wants to see a stat that you can figure out by hand if you've gotten past Algebra.

FloridaTigers
03-25-2010, 03:55 PM
I post at motownsports on occasions, and I would say Tigers fans' hate is probably divided about 40% Twinkees, 30% Sox, 10% Indians with the rest for the usual suspects (NYY, Boston, KC).

Seems accurate enough. I hate the Twins the most, with the rest of the AL Central behind them. Who are you on MTS? "reality"? "go kitties"?

asindc
03-25-2010, 03:55 PM
Seems accurate enough. I hate the Twins the most, with the rest of the AL Central behind them. Who are you on MTS? "reality"? "go kitties"?

asindc

bunty_doghunter
03-25-2010, 06:34 PM
My hatred for them really hit a peak level when I found out that the Metrodome superintendent (or something) really did turn on the fans to blow out when the Twins were up to bat in the 1987 and 1991 world series.

How strange that the Twins were only able to win games at home in both Series...

:angry:^100

Sorry, but this is nonsense. You fail physics. Write a letter to Mythbusters about it.

Oblong
03-26-2010, 06:29 PM
asindc

Funny because I saw your post in the thread about top GM's and couldn't tell if I "knew" you from there or here!

The Twins have their own special place of hatred for this Tiger fan. It's Biblical in nature. I hate the Indians almost as much but that's due more to their fan base, if you'd call it that.

I have no real animosity towards the Sox beyond them being an AL Central rival. I'm not sure any self respecting Tiger fan can get on Ozzie and AJ with a straight face if they've ever cheered for guys like Laimbeer or Chris Chelios. Now if it's done all in good fun then so be it. that's the nature of being a fan, the irrationality of it.

Every team has their own set of unique fans that give the rest a bad name.

FloridaTigers
03-29-2010, 09:28 AM
Tigers fans have 1987, 2006, and 2009 especially as years to really pinpoint hatred for the Twins. I don't know if any other AL Central teams date far back with the Tigers like that. Sure, they've all been playing each other for 100 years, but I don't think Tigers fans started really hating the Sox, Indians and Royals until the 90's. I could swear I've heard some Tigers fans at MTS who actually LIKED the Royals before the move to the AL Central. I can't speak for all Tigers fans, but I know the Twins are easily my least favorite baseball team ever. Not the Soxes, Yanks, Indians or whatever. I think they might be the team I dislike the least in all professional sports.

BlackAndWhite
03-29-2010, 12:11 PM
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/09/images/02emperor350.jpg

Approves.

soxlady8
03-29-2010, 08:07 PM
I used to really dislike the Twinkies , but since Thome is on there now , I feel that I cannot dislike them as much -- I do not want them to do really overall , but Thome can have a great season if it doesn't hurt US too bad --

I also am a fan of Mauer -- he is a really nice guy and nice on the eyes too !!!

Nellie_Fox
03-29-2010, 09:03 PM
I really only hate two teams: Cubs and Yankees. Other than that, meh.

Chrisaway
03-31-2010, 03:05 PM
I don't hate the Twins. Yes they are our death rival but admit it, they are a fun team to watch. Plus I don't really hafta deal with Twins fans on a daily basis. That special kinda hatred is reserved for a much closer and, based on observation, much less baseball savvy fanbase. The Twins are a great rival.

guillensdisciple
03-31-2010, 03:40 PM
This was one of the funniest articles written about any sporting franchise I have ever read. Hilarious, I wish more people could write articles like that. The world would be a better place.

WhiteSoxFTW
04-02-2010, 01:55 PM
Great article. And I enjoyed the poster for the movie "Little Big League" at the end. Even though it used the Twins as the MLB team the kid inherits, that was one of my favorite movies growing up. I think I am going to watch it this weekend. :D: