PDA

View Full Version : Stats DON'T lie


caulfield12
09-30-2006, 03:31 AM
Castillo .356 OBP, Iguchi .350 OBP
58 K's/55 BB's (net -3)....110 K's/59 BB's (net -51)

Bartlett (basically a rookie) .368 OBP, Uribe .257 OBP
44 K's/22 BB's (net -22)...82 K's/13 BB's (net -69)

Tyner .345 OBP, Pods .332 OBP
18 K's/11 BB's (net -7)...110 K's/59 BB's (net -51)

Punto .358 OBP, Anderson .297 OBP, Mackowiak .358
68/47 (-21)...87/30 (-57)...55/27 (-28)

Twins K/BB (-53)
White Sox K/BB (-256)

It's not simple as dumping Anderson, Uribe and probably Pods. We all know that. However, if KW brings back this same team offensively, even if our pitching improves 0.50 in ERA, I'm still not sure we're back in the playoffs due to Liriano being around for a full season (the Twins have $30 million off the books to spend as well to improve a team that won 95 with significant injuries)...then you have the Tigers and Indians to deal with as well.

But we're clearly getting our hats handed two us by the complementary players in terms of OBP and making contact (which leads to advancing runners and manufacturing runs...)

I should have titled it, Hips Don't Lie either. Seriously, the Tigers do have similar issues in terms of OBP and K/BB's for Granderson, Inge, Monroe, Shelton, Thames...but they have the trump card, much better pitching, which masks that weakness or flaw.

Granderson, despite all the K's, has a .337 OBP. Which is better than Pods.
Guillen has a .399 OBP and 85 K's/71 BB's.
Inge still has an OBP of .315.
Monroe is at .303. Polanco at .326, plus he only has 26 K's and 16 walks.

But, to paraphrase Carville, "It's (Also) the Pitching Stupid."

caulfield12
09-30-2006, 03:57 AM
"I prefer to think of the stolen base as pressure," Williams said before Jermaine Dye hit his 44th homer to move into solo possession of second place on the Sox's single-season home run list. "I like keeping the defense on its heels because the guys at the top and bottom are hitting and running, doing different types of things."

from chicagosports.com

I think Owens might figure into next year's team more than I thought, at least moreso than Sweeney or Fields.

Beautox
09-30-2006, 04:13 AM
"I prefer to think of the stolen base as pressure," Williams said before Jermaine Dye hit his 44th homer to move into solo possession of second place on the Sox's single-season home run list. "I like keeping the defense on its heels because the guys at the top and bottom are hitting and running, doing different types of things."

from chicagosports.com

I think Owens might figure into next year's team more than I thought, at least moreso than Sweeney or Fields.

How? he hit .262 at AAA in a hitters park, I'd love to be proven wrong, but don't kid yourself hes going to struggle in a full time role, hell maybe even in a partial role. if he played full time next year you might be looking at best something similar toPodsednik this season with a little better defense in LF. No thank you.

ma-gaga
09-30-2006, 08:33 AM
Bartlett (basically a rookie) .368 OBP, Uribe .257 OBP
44 K's/22 BB's (net -22)...82 K's/13 BB's (net -69)

Tyner .345 OBP, Pods .332 OBP
18 K's/11 BB's (net -7)...110 K's/59 BB's (net -51)

...the Twins have $30 million off the books to spend as well to improve a team that won 95 with significant injuries


Both Bartlett and Tyner were not 140+ game starters this year. Bartlett got 326 at bats and Tyner 215. The ratios are still there, but projected over an entire season it evens out a bit.

And they don't have as much to spend as you think they do. Mauer/Cuddyer/Morneau are all up for arbitration. So yeah, $30mm is coming off, but a minimum of $10mm is going right back on to keep their middle lineup guys. If they somehow excercise Hunter's option, then they only have $8mm to spend.

drewcifer
09-30-2006, 08:40 AM
Both Bartlett and Tyner were not 140+ game starters this year. Bartlett got 326 at bats and Tyner 215. The ratios are still there, but projected over an entire season it evens out a bit.

And they don't have as much to spend as you think they do. Mauer/Cuddyer/Morneau are all up for arbitration. So yeah, $30mm is coming off, but a minimum of $10mm is going right back on to keep their middle lineup guys. If they somehow excercise Hunter's option, then they only have $8mm to spend.

:nod:

One other thing - IF Liriano has TJ surgery, you will not see him at all next year.

caulfield12
09-30-2006, 09:31 AM
:nod:

One other thing - IF Liriano has TJ surgery, you will not see him at all next year.


They have no reason to lie and pretend he won't need surgery when he's not pitching for them in the playoffs...

We'll just have to wait and see. Maybe that violent slider can never be withstood by anyone's ligaments and tendons for a long period of time.

jabrch
09-30-2006, 09:31 AM
"Stats DON'T lie"

But people interpret stats to tell whatever story they'd like.

SoxEd
09-30-2006, 09:41 AM
"Stats DON'T lie"

But people interpret stats to tell whatever story they'd like.


What he said!

Although, personally, I was tempted to go with the phrase "Lies, Damned Lies, and...".
:redneck

Whilst stats are a crucial tool for evaluating a player's performance, they can NEVER tell you whether or not the same player would be able to replicate that level of performance on the Sox.

Which is, after all, the issue that matters to us.

caulfield12
09-30-2006, 09:43 AM
"Stats DON'T lie"

But people interpret stats to tell whatever story they'd like.

That Uribe and Anderson are the weaknesses of our offense. Of course you don't need stats.

That the Royals have scored more runs since the break, same thing, we can see the offense is struggling.

Do you believe that Uribe, Pods and Anderson will all be better next year than this season? If so, we don't need to make any moves.

Same thing with the pitching.

The story we can't tell with stats was the storyline Hawk alluded to throughout the final month...heart, desire, will to win, wanting it...whatever you call it, adding Thome (who hadn't won a WS) wasn't enough of an addition to kick that component into overdrive.

So now we're basing next season on the HOPE that the players want it more and that Ozzie wants it more? I think that's dangerous, but if KW and OG want to be stubborn (like they were with Uribe or Anderson/Mackowiak), then go for it.

If we basically stand pat and only add a RH 4th outfielder (dumping Gload or Ozuna) and a RH reliever, there will be more second guessers than just Jay Mariotti next September.

caulfield12
09-30-2006, 09:46 AM
What he said!

Although, personally, I was tempted to go with the phrase "Lies, Damned Lies, and...".
:redneck

Whilst stats are a crucial tool for evaluating a player's performance, they can NEVER tell you whether or not the same player would be able to replicate that level of performance on the Sox.

Which is, after all, the issue that matters to us.


Exactly, so how can players like Tyner (who has been released almost 10 times), Punto, Bartlett (Phils) and Castillo (the Marlins didn't want him any more, thought he was aging) magically become better ballplayers...because they are put on the roster of the Twins? Because of the hidden Dome effect?

Mickster
09-30-2006, 09:49 AM
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/propellerhead.jpg

caulfield12
09-30-2006, 09:59 AM
Still waiting for someone to tell me why the Twins have beaten us four of the last five years (besides pitching, which apparently is the ONLY element of baseball now, and the MetroDome)?

Your best response is a cartoon? How about someone actually tries to articulate a response, instead of just drinking Kool Aid and thinking our team will magically perform better and "want it more" than 2006?

Daver
09-30-2006, 10:07 AM
Still waiting for someone to tell me why the Twins have beaten us four of the last five years (besides pitching, which apparently is the ONLY element of baseball now, and the MetroDome)?

Your best response is a cartoon? How about someone actually tries to articulate a response, instead of just drinking Kool Aid and thinking our team will magically perform better and "want it more" than 2006?

Simple.

They combine good pitching and solid team baseball.

The Sox did it last season and won a championship, the Twins do it every season.

caulfield12
09-30-2006, 10:13 AM
Simple.

They combine good pitching and solid team baseball.

The Sox did it last season and won a championship, the Twins do it every season.


And why haven't we done it? Why is that the Twins can do it and nobody else can replicate it? Is it THAT difficult to instill? Why does every free agent or draft pick over there buy into the Twins' "system?" Why doesn't this happen with other organizations on a consistent basis?

We can blame Manuel in 2002 and 2003, injuries in 2004...but who do we point the finger at this season? The team had no significant injuries like our competitors. That would be easier to live with as an excuse.

And did Manuel's "bad managing" really give 5-10 games' advantage to the Twins both of those seasons?

If we do return most of our roster, this "team concept" needs to be the most important goal for next season, or we're done before the season even starts. Whether the team quit or not (which I've never seen in Gardenhire's term over there)...they need to really reassess and change the way they go about things as an organization, from minor league instruction, drafting, coaching, advanced scouting (a problem for seemingly a decade)...top to bottom.

Daver
09-30-2006, 10:16 AM
If we do return most of our roster, this "team concept" needs to be the most important goal for next season, or we're done before the season even starts. Whether the team quit or not (which I've never seen in Gardenhire's term over there)...they need to really reassess and change the way they go about things as an organization, from minor league instrution, drafting, coaching, advanced scouting (a problem for seemingly a decade)...top to bottom.


Perhaps you're not paying attention, but I've said that for years.

caulfield12
09-30-2006, 10:26 AM
Perhaps you're not paying attention, but I've said that for years.


Probably due to the fact I started posting here after we won (I used to post at chisox.com from 01-05) and we HAD won the WS at that point, so this thread was obviously not a popular notion last offseason. That board just got out of control...no moderation...just a few intelligent posters and you had to fight with ncorgbl almost every day about something.

I'm sure this was a topic of discussion from 01-04 though. It's impossible to avoid, the white elephant in the room, so to speak.

PaulDrake
09-30-2006, 10:29 AM
I'm paying attention to both of you, and for the most part agree.

SoxEd
09-30-2006, 11:01 AM
Add me to the list of folks who think that the 'Team' ethos is crucial.

Last year's Sox had it in spades, and they also played like it - they were able and willing to play scrappy ball when they needed to - patient at the plate, etc.

Obviously we had the stellar years from the SP's & BP, but the whole unit seemed (to me, at a couple of thousand miles' distance) to be more focussed on the Team's success over their own.

This year, whilst the SP & BP has been much less succesful, we also seem to have had more big swings and big misses at the plate. Why is this? Why the apparent loss of patience from our batsmen (Cricket term that, IMO, sounds better than 'batters')?

The Twins, as a franchise, have obviously managed to put a system in place that not only builds a good team ethos, but which picks up players on the basis of whether they'll fit in to the franchise, rather than just on their stats.

I guess that this is probably easier to do in a small-town team like the Twins - they can't afford 'Marquee' players, and the guys they can afford know it - and they all know that their best chance of success is to pull for the team. Also, I guess it's easier to build a team ethos when there are no 'superstars' in the Clubhouse.

They get added motivation from the chance that this model affords these 'lesser' players to show-up more-expensive teams in larger markets, composed of supposedly 'better' players.
And helping the Twins to perform well also increases a player's likelihood of getting a move to a big market team.

N.B. - I am NOT claiming that the Sox do NOT all 'pull together', or that the players are entirely focussed on their own stats etc; just that the Twins' organisation has found a way to consistently motivate their players to produce as a unit, whereas we have yet to do so.

The 2006 Sox certainly performed less well than we expected, for whatever reason (extra fatigue after last year's post-season exertions?), but I hope that the 2005 team's success, after switching to a model of 'buying players to fit in with the team' model, after several years of failing while trying to slug our way out of the Division, will have convinced the Sox FO to persist with that modus operandi.

If we fail again next year (or rather, if our Winning ballclub gets outperformed by its smaller-market rival once more), then maybe we have to start asking the questions that Daver has mentioned.

caulfield12
09-30-2006, 11:09 AM
Add me to the list of folks who think that the 'Team' ethos is crucial.

Last year's Sox had it in spades, and they also played like it - they were able and willing to play scrappy ball when they needed to - patient at the plate, etc.

Obviously we had the stellar years from the SP's & BP, but the whole unit seemed (to me, at a couple of thousand miles' distance) to be more focussed on the Team's success over their own.

This year, whilst the SP & BP has been much less succesful, we also seem to have had more big swings and big misses at the plate. Why is this? Why the apparent loss of patience from our batsmen (Cricket term that, IMO, sounds better than 'batters')?

The Twins, as a franchise, have obviously managed to put a system in place that not only builds a good team ethos, but which picks up players on the basis of whether they'll fit in to the franchise, rather than just on their stats.

I guess that this is probably easier to do in a small-town team like the Twins - they can't afford 'Marquee' players, and the guys they can afford know it - and they all know that their best chance of success is to pull for the team. Also, I guess it's easier to build a team ethos when there are no 'superstars' in the Clubhouse.

They get added motivation from the chance that this model affords these 'lesser' players to show-up more-expensive teams in larger markets, composed of supposedly 'better' players.
And helping the Twins to perform well also increases a player's likelihood of getting a move to a big market team.

N.B. - I am NOT claiming that the Sox do NOT all 'pull together', or that the players are entirely focussed on their own stats etc; just that the Twins' organisation has found a way to consistently motivate their players to produce as a unit, whereas we have yet to do so.

The 2006 Sox certainly performed less well than we expected, for whatever reason (extra fatigue after last year's post-season exertions?), but I hope that the 2005 team's success, after switching to a model of 'buying players to fit in with the team' model, after several years of failing while trying to slug our way out of the Division, will have convinced the Sox FO to persist with that modus operandi.

If we fail again next year (or rather, if our Winning ballclub gets outperformed by its smaller-market rival once more), then maybe we have to start asking the questions that Daver has mentioned.


Morneau
Cuddyer
Mauer
Hunter (when healthy)
Liriano (when healthy)
Santana
Nathan

It might be hard to find a combination of seven better players (at key positions like CF and C, a closer and two pitchers) than this.

What always gets me (and seems to beat us as well) is the LeCroys, Hockings, Fords, Bartletts, Puntos and Tyners. That's infuriating.

Which means they're doing their jobs...

But yeah, general lack of respect, being contracted, smaller payroll, smaller fanbase, "miserly" owner (at least reputation, not quite like Loria, but similarities), size the city and the Midwest being viewed as "flyover territory" by most of the country...even their GM is the most low-key, low-profile guy you could imagine, unlike a certain California counterpart.

jabrch
09-30-2006, 11:54 AM
The story we can't tell with stats was the storyline Hawk alluded to throughout the final month...heart, desire, will to win, wanting it...whatever you call it, adding Thome (who hadn't won a WS) wasn't enough of an addition to kick that component into overdrive.

So now we're basing next season on the HOPE that the players want it more and that Ozzie wants it more? I think that's dangerous, but if KW and OG want to be stubborn (like they were with Uribe or Anderson/Mackowiak), then go for it.

If we basically stand pat and only add a RH 4th outfielder (dumping Gload or Ozuna) and a RH reliever, there will be more second guessers than just Jay Mariotti next September.

You are absolutely wrong. There are a lot of things that you can manipulate statistics to show. I can use the same damn set of statistics that you use to prove that we can't have Pods leading off and Uribe at SS and prove to you, with the same level of confidence that you can prove otherwise to me, that we can or can not win with them.

The discipline that you talk of when you refer to statisics is completely the subjective interpretation of the meaning of the quantifiable numbers. Let's be clear on this - you can not look at at statistics in baseball and tell me anything other than WHAT HAPPENED. YOU CAN NOT TELL ME WHAT MAY/WILL HAPPEN. So you can take all the OBP, OPS, DIPS, DRIPS, DLIPS+, SLIPS, CHIPS and HIPS and stuff them in your spreadsheet. It doesn't change the fact that this game is still played by human beings who's performance varies from minute to minute in a non-linear and non-repeated non-pattern.

It doesn't take a spreadsheet or a number for me to tell you that next year we need more hits. It doesn't take a spreadsheet or a number for me to tell you that next year we need more walks, runs, etc. It doesn't take a spreadsheet or a number for me to tell you that next year we need better pitching from our starters and our pen. But by no means can you look at statistics and conclude ANYTHING about next year that I can't conclude, or dispute, with surety, without statistics.

Statistics tell you what happened. They don't tell you what will happen. For that, only SHE can help us.
:cleo

ma-gaga
09-30-2006, 12:46 PM
:nod:

One other thing - IF Liriano has TJ surgery, you will not see him at all next year.

Agreed. The Twins need SP insurance. Don't quite know who, but a vet SP wouldn't be the worst thing for them. If it was me, I'd be tempted to run the kids out there. Santana, Boof, Garza, Baker, Perkins. Liriano if healthy. ... Seems like I'm missing someone. Either way, that staff looks awfully green. I don't know if Gardy's stomach lining can handle that many young pitchers.

It doesn't take a spreadsheet or a number for me to tell you that next year we need more hits. It doesn't take a spreadsheet or a number for me to tell you that next year we need more walks, runs, etc.

The biggest difference in the Twins and everyone else is their toughness. Radke pitched all year hurt. Hunter played all year hurt. Everyone knows this, and everyone feeds off it. You cannot measure that. You cannot put a price on that. I saw that last year in the W.Sox, I see that this year in the Twins.

Simple.

They combine good pitching and solid team baseball.

The Sox did it last season and won a championship, the Twins do it every season.

Daver with the succinct answer. In it's simplest form, that's it.

And why haven't we done it? Why is that the Twins can do it and nobody else can replicate it? Is it THAT difficult to instill? Why does every free agent or draft pick over there buy into the Twins' "system?" Why doesn't this happen with other organizations on a consistent basis?

Everyone during the winter pays lip service to "doing things the right way". 90% of the teams get distracted by that shiney piece of metal, or homerun hitter, and lose their focus. They let the Todd Walkers, the Ron Belliards or even the Andy Martes' stay because of their offensive numbers, and then when they start losing those games 3-2, or 5-4 because of a dribbler thru the left side of the infield, they scratch their heads at the end of the year trying to figure out what happened.

"but our run differential was awesome"

I left you kind of a snarky response in the other thread (haven't checked it yet), but yeah, it's a organization mindset. Terry Ryan and Jim Rantz do not get distracted, and that's made the entire organization lean and hungry. That and Pohlad being a cheap ass probably helped the organization become as efficient as possible. In some strange way, the Twins being a small market team has forced them to structure their teams this way.

The mindset is the biggest thing. I question Gardy's in-game decision making, but he got the Twins tougher than leather.

"90% of this game is half mental".

:cool:

caulfield12
09-30-2006, 01:08 PM
Agreed. The Twins need SP insurance. Don't quite know who, but a vet SP wouldn't be the worst thing for them. If it was me, I'd be tempted to run the kids out there. Santana, Boof, Garza, Baker, Perkins. Liriano if healthy. ... Seems like I'm missing someone. Either way, that staff looks awfully green. I don't know if Gardy's stomach lining can handle that many young pitchers.



The biggest difference in the Twins and everyone else is their toughness. Radke pitched all year hurt. Hunter played all year hurt. Everyone knows this, and everyone feeds off it. You cannot measure that. You cannot put a price on that. I saw that last year in the W.Sox, I see that this year in the Twins.



Daver with the succinct answer. In it's simplest form, that's it.



Everyone during the winter pays lip service to "doing things the right way". 90% of the teams get distracted by that shiney piece of metal, or homerun hitter, and lose their focus. They let the Todd Walkers, the Ron Belliards or even the Andy Martes' stay because of their offensive numbers, and then when they start losing those games 3-2, or 5-4 because of a dribbler thru the left side of the infield, they scratch their heads at the end of the year trying to figure out what happened.

"but our run differential was awesome"

I left you kind of a snarky response in the other thread (haven't checked it yet), but yeah, it's a organization mindset. Terry Ryan and Jim Rantz do not get distracted, and that's made the entire organization lean and hungry. That and Pohlad being a cheap ass probably helped the organization become as efficient as possible. In some strange way, the Twins being a small market team has forced them to structure their teams this way.

The mindset is the biggest thing. I question Gardy's in-game decision making, but he got the Twins tougher than leather.

"90% of this game is half mental".

:cool:



Which is precisely the lesson the Twins learned starting off the season with all-or-nothing, no range, out of shape Tony Batista.

When you take players like Tyner who have been released over and over again...Phil Nevin said this was the best two-three weeks of his life, playing with the Twins this year.

Redmond said this Twins' team was better than his 2003 Marlins.

You're missing Carlos Silva...big question, Game 4 next week against NY, do you start Matt Garza (of the near 6 ERA now) or Carlos Silva. Huge decision. I think they might go with Silva now...Baker is starting tomorrow. Not sure they won't let Silva pitch quite a bit tomorrow in relief.

jabrch
09-30-2006, 05:12 PM
The biggest difference in the Twins and everyone else is their toughness.

I think that's complete horsecrap. TOUGHNESS? Come on. How can you tell me a franchise teaches, fosters, grows "toughness". That's foofoo. That's like saying Jeter's best quality is his "leadership"

BULL****.

The twins best skill is hitting and pitching. This year they did it better than we did. That's the only problem here.

Daver
09-30-2006, 05:15 PM
I think that's complete horsecrap. TOUGHNESS? Come on. How can you tell me a franchise teaches, fosters, grows "toughness". That's foofoo. That's like saying Jeter's best quality is his "leadership"

BULL****.

The twins best skill is hitting and pitching. This year they did it better than we did. That's the only problem here.

No, the Twins best skill is playing no ego team baseball, all game, every game. it is instilled in them from rookie ball through the top level of their minor league system, because in thier system you do not advance to the next level until you have learned it.

jabrch
09-30-2006, 05:24 PM
No, the Twins best skill is playing no ego team baseball, all game, every game. it is instilled in them from rookie ball through the top level of their minor league system, because in thier system you do not advance to the next level until you have learned it.

Daver, what is it that Santana does that is "no ego"? Strikes people out? Gets them to not hit the ball? How about Mauer? Hunter? Castillo?

They hit the ball this year better than we did. They pitched better than we did. They ran the bases better than we did. I'm not sure how their egos had anything to do with it, or how our team's assumed egos did.

Every player on their team who got 335 ABs or more hit over .280. 6 of the 8 hit over .290. 5 of them hit over .295. They had no regular starters with an obp under .337 except Rondell White.

Their bench guys played better than ours did also - Redmond hit .350. Tyner and Bartlett outplayed our backups.

The only place we really bested them was in the back end of the rotation - and even that's shakey.

They weren't tougher - they were better.

Daver
09-30-2006, 05:42 PM
Daver, what is it that Santana does that is "no ego"? Strikes people out? Gets them to not hit the ball? How about Mauer? Hunter? Castillo?

They hit the ball this year better than we did. They pitched better than we did. They ran the bases better than we did. I'm not sure how their egos had anything to do with it, or how our team's assumed egos did.

Every player on their team who got 335 ABs or more hit over .280. 6 of the 8 hit over .290. 5 of them hit over .295. They had no regular starters with an obp under .337 except Rondell White.

Their bench guys played better than ours did also - Redmond hit .350. Tyner and Bartlett outplayed our backups.

The only place we really bested them was in the back end of the rotation - and even that's shakey.

They weren't tougher - they were better.

Watch the little things they do, they hit behind the runner, they are smart and aggressive on the basepaths, they are willing to sacrifice a runner over, they use that god awful dump they play in to their advantage, they play smart team baseball, they do not sit back and wait for the middle of the lineup to hit homeruns. Their pitching is good, but that pitching staff had them twelve and a half games out of first early in the season, as a team they made that ground up.

caulfield12
09-30-2006, 05:47 PM
Watch the little things they do, they hit behind the runner, they are smart and aggressive on the basepaths, they are willing to sacrifice a runner over, they use that god awful dump they play in to their advantage, they play smart team baseball, they do not sit back and wait for the middle of the lineup to hit homeruns. Their pitching is good, but that pitching staff had them twelve and a half games out of first early in the season, as a team they made that ground up.


And it wasn't all pitching either.

Their bullpen has been great, the best in baseball.

After Santana, Radke and Silva were horrible the first half, along with Baker. Lohse was worse than horrible.

Bonser pitched very well, in the second half, Radke did too, but Garza and Baker were up and down, usually down.

Liriano's streak in the middle of the season, Radke's stabilization and the jelling of Punto, Bartlett, Tyner and add in that Morneau started his MVP stretch from mid-May....

jabrch
09-30-2006, 05:48 PM
Watch the little things they do, they hit behind the runner, they are smart and aggressive on the basepaths, they are willing to sacrifice a runner over, they use that god awful dump they play in to their advantage, they play smart team baseball, they do not sit back and wait for the middle of the lineup to hit homeruns. Their pitching is good, but that pitching staff had them twelve and a half games out of first early in the season, as a team they made that ground up.

As a team they hit .287/.347. That's FIRST in batting average and 6th in OBP. Even 16th in slg with a .435. I agree - the little things they do are important - but that's not "toughness" or "ego" - that's baseball. First in hitting, 6th in obp. A weak or a selfish team still will look mighty good with that.

Oh, and by the way, 3rd lowest ERA and 2nd lowest WHIP also. That helps.

Same as last year's sox team. It's not "ozzieball" or small ball. It's pitching and hitting. It's good players who execute.

Daver
09-30-2006, 05:55 PM
As a team they hit .287/.347. That's FIRST in batting average and 6th in OBP. Even 16th in slg with a .435. I agree - the little things they do are important - but that's not "toughness" or "ego" - that's baseball. First in hitting, 6th in obp. A weak or a selfish team still will look mighty good with that.

Oh, and by the way, 3rd lowest ERA and 2nd lowest WHIP also. That helps.

Same as last year's sox team. It's not "ozzieball" or small ball. It's pitching and hitting. It's good players who execute.


Ego, or the lack thereof, is a player doing what it takes to win, as opposed to padding his own stats when he can. The Twins have an entire roster of guys that do what it takes to win.

goon
09-30-2006, 07:12 PM
And why haven't we done it? Why is that the Twins can do it and nobody else can replicate it? Is it THAT difficult to instill? Why does every free agent or draft pick over there buy into the Twins' "system?" Why doesn't this happen with other organizations on a consistent basis?


lots of organization have great "systems" that usually equate into consistent success, however, that doesn't mean **** about winning in the postseason. the twins almost always have a good season, but in their last few postseason chances they have done nothing.

when you add in the metrodome as well, that just gives them an edge.. if the twins were playing in an outdoor stadium they would probably lose between 5-10 more games a year, imho.