Half-Full or Half-Empty?

by dwintheiser on May 5, 2008 5:03 PM EDT

Many observers are choosing to look at the 2008 Twins as a glass half-full, especially since they're currently leading what looks to be a surprisingly weak division. But there's an argument to be made that the glass is actually half-empty and likely to get more empty.

No less of authorities than the Twins Geek and Joe Christiansen have observed what might be called the 'glass half full' argument for the Twins in 2008: the club is barely over .500 despite all these problems - Delmon Young not yet hitting the way we'd hoped, Mike Lamb hasn't yet gotten on any kind of offensive roll, Francisco Liriano F-bombed out of his big-league return. Yet the Twins are still competing for the division lead -- heck, they own the division lead, and with an off-day today will own it for at least another day or two at worst.

Yet there are points in favor of the thesis that this is about the best baseball the Twins are capable of playing, and that it's folly to expect that they'll continue to play this well the rest of the way. (I'm not saying it's impossible -- 2006 wasn't so long ago that I've forgotten the difference between unlikely and impossible.)

- Individually, Twins hitters aren't playing so far above their heads that maintaining their current pace would be impossible -- Mauer has already spent an entire season hitting better than .333, and Morneau actually is on pace to hit a bit less than he did in his MVP season, even if he does wind up with more homers. About the only Twin you could say is hitting significantly better than expected would be Matt Tolbert, and even his production isn't so unreasonable that he couldn't end the season close to a 700 OPS even if his average drops from over .300.

Even with these performances, though, the club is still 13th in runs scored (though 11th in runs per game because they've played fewer games -- more on that later) and 14th in on-base percentage in the AL. Granted, the club could move up to 12th pretty easily, since they're just .001 behind both KC and Seattle, but the last time a club made the AL post-season with an OBP in the bottom three? The 2006 Detroit Tigers, who made up for it by being among the top three in homers and had the best pitching in the league.

- The success of the pitching staff thus far has been tremendously helped by three guys that few expected to be as good as they've been: Livan Hernandez, Brian Bass, and Nick Blackburn. Of the three, Hernandez easily has the longest track record, yet it's not impossible he could stay this good most of the year (Kenny Rogers, anyone?). Blackburn is making Baseball America look good, and it wouldn't even be the first time a young pitcher had a great season for the Twins after being thrown into the rotation (Allan Anderson, Scott Erickson, Johan Santana, etc., anyone?).

Nevertheless, thanks to a very generous schedule, the Twins have had enough rest days so that they've basically operated on a four-man rotation for the first six weeks of the season -- Hernandez, Bonser, Baker, and Blackburn have made 26 of the Twins 30 starts thus far, with three starts going to Liriano and one to Slowey.

Unfortunately, this can't continue -- today is the Twins last rest day until May 26th, and they don't get another day off after that until June 16th. And while I've never seen a study that posited a connection between long stretches without rest and poor team performance, there's enough anecdotal evidence over the past few seasons, just in the Central, to give any thinking fan pause:

- In 2006, the Detroit Tigers were up 8.5 games in the Central with 48 to play, having just completed a series with the Twins. The Tigers had a day off on August 10, then played 17 straight days, after which they'd fallen to just 5 games up. Then, after a pair of rest days, the Tigers played 13 games in 12 days, during which they lost another three games off their lead. We all know what happened after that, but once the Tigers reached the post-season, with its copious number of rest days, the Tigers rebounded and advanced all the way to the World Series.

- In 2005, the Chicago White Sox were up 7 games in the AL Central with 40 games to play. The White Sox had a day off on August 22, after which they finished the entire season with just one final rest day, on September 12. During this time, the Sox went from being up 9 games (shortly after the beginning of the run) to being up only a game and a half (on Sept 22, ten days after their last rest day and in the midst of playing 40 games in 41 days) before finally putting the division away. Again, once the team reached the post-season and copious rest, the club rebounded and advanced all the way to the World Series, winning it.

- In 2001, the Twins were leading the AL Central by 5 games at the All-Star break. Then they started the second half with a stretch of 18 straight games, during which the club lost their lead, falling into a fight for the division. A couple of rest days in late July and early August helped the Twins stay in the fight for the division -- they were either in the lead, tied, or no more than a game and a half out for nearly three weeks -- before another long stretch of 20 straight games in mid-to-late August dropped the team another five games in the standings, after which they were never again in contention.

Tomorrow's game in Chicago begins a stretch of 20 straight games before the Twins next rest day, then after that single day off the club plays another 20 straight.

If the glass is ever going to get more than half-full, maybe we'd better pray for rain.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Kind of a moving target argument

at least on the days off question.

Don’t you think it is far more important who the team is playing during any given stretch? And, doesn’t every team face the same basic challenge in regard to consecutive games?

If you look at the rest of May, the Twins only play one team with a winning record—Boston. Of course, some teams could easily turn around and get a winning record in the next several weeks, but the point is, the Twins’ schedule for the next month is very favorable.

I’m from the half full crowd, and if I had time to make an argument it would be this: the Twins have not started to jell as an offensive unit yet. Cuddyer was out for three weeks, Lamb is just getting started, Kubel has upside, Gomez will get better and Mauer and Morneau are very capable hitters moving toward their prime years.

In short, they will score runs, especially given the dubious bullpen situations in Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit.

On pitching, I see the Twins bullpen as solid, a top three bullpen. Their starters are not overpowering, but they have the potential to throw a lot of quality starts. We wasted three games on the Liriano experiment. Baker has been hurting. Boof actually, overall, is showing signs of consolidating his repertoire. Livan will get his share of ‘in trouble’ wins. Quality starts with the Twins bullpen means they are in every game and will win their share.

Their whole success comes down to the secondary starters, Blackburn and Slowey. If they come through, this thing will go into September. If they get hit repeatedly, then patching together enough innings becomes problematic.

But, unless another team gets hot, I would not be surprised to see the Twins in first or very close, for the rest of the month.

Caveats apply: this is baseball after all.

by Old Twins Cap on May 5, 2008 5:48 PM EDT 0 recs

Yes and no

Don’t you think it is far more important who the team is playing during any given stretch?

You’d think so, but again, the anecdotal evidence would seem to disagree:

The Tigers during their free-fall in 2006 lost three-of-four in August to the Rangers at home, who tried and barely missed making .500, dropped two-of-three to the Mariners at home in September, who’d already been eliminated from the race by then, and perhaps most famously, were swept at home by the 100-loss Royals in the final series of the season, needing to win only one to force at least a share of the division title.

The White Sox in 2005 were playing much tougher competition (for the most part their losses were to fellow playoff teams and near-off teams like the Angels, Yankees, and Indians), yet they also lost three of four in Texas to the Rangers, and only managed a split of six games against a Royals team that lost nearly two for every win.

The first part of the Twins collapse in 2001 could be considered running into a buzzsaw—they lost seven games to the record-setting Mariners (who won twice for every loss that year) and another three to the division-winning Cardinals in interleague play during their first long stretch of games. Yet during the second stretch, they dropped six of seven to the 100-loss Devil Rays.

Again, this is only anecdotal evidence and it doesn’t guarantee that the Twins won’t be able to compete. But if you’re looking for a benchmark to grade the hypothesis against, keep an eye on the three game series in Detroit at the end of the first marathon stretch (especially if the Tigers still don’t seem to have put it all together by then), and then the three games in Milwaukee at the end of the second stretch. If the Twins are still within four of the division lead going into that Brewers series, and within five coming out of it, I’ll applaud the club for surviving what’s likely the toughest stretch of their season.

If I had to guess, though? I’d predict on June 16 that the team will be at least eight games below .500 and double-digits behind the leader. I’ll even put up a beer as a friendly wager for anyone who thinks my prediction is too pessimistic, redeemable at the Twins-D’Backs game on my birthday, June 20.

by dwintheiser on May 5, 2008 7:18 PM EDT 0 recs

I'd take that bet...

...but won’t be in the country.

by Jesse on May 5, 2008 7:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'd take that bet as well

But won’t be in the state.
Maybe if you’re wrong you can pour all these beers down a funnel, and into TC Bear? Bet that would make it on YouTube.

by caluofmn on May 5, 2008 8:00 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'm in

I’ll have a depth charge in mine please. I like an IPA with a splash of Canadian in the bottom of the glass. And pour it down the middle. None of this side of the glass crap. I need to be able to stick my nose in it without touching liquid.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 5, 2008 9:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'd say half-empty

and you’ve shot the bottom out of the glass with a howitzer.

IMO, this team deserves credit for a pretty good first month considering the disruptions (let’s see, Frankie flames out, Baker’s been in & out, Slowey’s been mostly out, Cuddyer missed a bunch of time), the slow starts of Lamb & Young, Kubel’s recent slide and Gomez’s inconsistency. They’re not World Series caliber by any stretch – - – but neither were the ‘87 Twins before, oh, say, October.

No, I’m not predicting a World Championship for this bunch – this group is probably better at spots 4 & 5 in the rotation (perhaps even 3 – 5), but the hitting ain’t even close.

But I do think they’re capable of hanging around for a while, playing some games under pressure & learning for the future.

by BD57 on May 5, 2008 8:20 PM EDT 0 recs

It's Both, maybe

I think we’re seeing pretty close to what we should be out of the Twins.

It’s interesting to note, the Twins have been outscored this year. Their Pythagorean wins expected to this point would leave them with only a 14-16 record instead of the 16-14 one they boast. This is probably mostly the cause of some good luck in one run games, which the Twins have gone 7-4 in. Now, I do believe somewhat in the ability of a very good bullpen to consistently cause a slight lift over runs expected and an improved winning percentage in one run games compared to the winning percentage of all games. But a 64% winning percentage in one run games for a team who’s actual record and Pythagorean record shows them to be about a .500 team is more than I’m willing to say is caused by forces other than luck. Furthermore, while the Twins bullpen has been good, it still has only the 4th best ERA in the American League.

Going forward, I would expect to see Hernandez’s 4.43 ERA to worsen about half a run or so by season’s end. I wuld also expect to see Nick Blackburn’s 3.52 ERA worsen by about the same amount (which may be optomistic). Now, these changes COULD be offset by other starters. Kevin Slowey will be critical. Scouts have long loved him, yu can’t argue with his performance last year, and most projection metrics had him as our best pitcher this year. So far, he’s been hurt and ineffective. If he can come back and put up an ERA around the high-3’s like many projection systems expected, that go a very long way in dealing with the dropoff fro those other two. I wouldn’t expect to see Baker get much worse or better than the hangin’-around-4 ERA he’s sitting on now. Can we expect ANYTHING of value from Liriano? Well, maybe later in the season, and that sure could add a few wins to our total.

For the hitting, I think it’s been about as bad as it is going to be. Mauer and Morneau are still on the bottom side of what we’d expect from them, Young can’t possibly hit this poorly over the entire season, even matching his numbers from last year would be over a .100 point OPS jump. Jason Kubel has very quietly, and with many good words said about him, actually been pretty poor at the plate with his .245 batting average coup[led with only 3 walks all year. Harris is hitting worse than he did last year. Mike Lamb has nowhere to go but WAY up from his .518 OPS. Not to mention we’ve had Michael Cuddyer out of the lineup for a lot of the month, and his return will only help.

The flipside, though, is the competition is almost guaranteed to improve. After starting 0-7, Detroit has gone 14-11. Their pitching is highly suspect, but their potent offense will still likely propel them to a lot of wins. Cleveland has also started slow at 14-17, but they’ve been victims of bad luck thus far, with a Pythagorean record of 16-15, and are also sure bets to start play a lot better. Cleveland is still the best team in the division in my estimation and I still expect them to win 95 games or so. Chicago has actually been pretty unlucky by their Pythagorean, but I think they’re playing way above their heads anyway. Kansas City is playing abut as well as they can and they are still a couple games better than they ought to be. They aren’t the pushovers of years past with some of the pitching they’ve finally assembled, but they aren’t going to break .500 this year.

SO for the Twins, I think I see a slight improvement for the offense going forward, likely offset by a slight decline (or a hold-steady, if we’re lucky) for the pitching. But I don’t see our place in the standings holding as the better teams roar to life as the season matures.

But is sure is fun now, isn’t it? Let’s stick it too those Red Sox!

"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane

by AdamOnFirst on May 5, 2008 8:52 PM EDT 0 recs

One thing

One thing I forgot to mention is the Twins are probably stable on the defensive side, with a sustainable and altogether pretty average .702 defensive efficiency rating (the percentage of balls in play turned to outs). Baltimore and Arizona should be worried, as they’ve had unsustainably high .740 and .738 ratings respectively, while Cincinnati can hope for some improvement from their .678 mark.

by AdamOnFirst on May 5, 2008 8:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

Defense+ bullpen is what distinguishes the Twins

The Tigers are gawdauful in the field. The Indians are OK, but nothing special. The White Sox are below average. The Royals actually play a guy at first who would fall over three times trying to run through a row of tires (Billy Butler). He’s almost as bad as Cabrera, who falls down every time he has to stretch. This division is defensively challenged, with the exception of the Twins.

The only team with half as good a bullpen as the Twins in this division is the White Sox. The Tigers are a wildfire waiting to happen. The Indians have one good reliever and a bunch of scrubs. The Royals, well, the Royals haven’t had a good bullpen since the 80s.

You can talk offense Pythagorean all you want. But defense and bullpen win the close games.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 5, 2008 9:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

Kansas City has a bullpen

I don’t know the numbers but I’ve watched a number of their games and they can close out games effectively.

by Old Twins Cap on May 5, 2008 9:20 PM EDT up 0 recs

Some bright spots

Soria+Ramirez has been as good a combo so far as Nathan+Neshek, if not better. Looking at their peripherals, I would suspect that Peralta is quite a bit better than his ERA, and Nunez has been pretty good, too. I wouldn’t go saying they have a great ‘pen, but it’s better than what it’s been in the past.

by ubelmann on May 5, 2008 10:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

I have trouble believing that the White Sox are below average...

Uribe+Cabrera+Crede is a pretty good infield, and Swisher’s better than you might think in CF. Their defensive efficiency is just as good as the Twins’ so far, which is right around average.

The Royals actually play a guy at first who would fall over three times trying to run through a row of tires (Billy Butler).

This might be a funny line, but Ross Gload gets 3/4ths of of the playing time there.

The Sox and the Royals aren’t anything special, but neither are the Twins, who have average or below average players in the corners, and a below average second baseman offsetting a somewhat above average SS and CF.

You can talk offense Pythagorean all you want. But defense and bullpen win the close games.

Unfortunately, there’s just no evidence for this. We can tell who the teams are with good bullpens, and we can tell who the teams are with good defenses, but there’s no overall pattern that these teams consistently beat their pythagorean record. If you want to cruch the numbers and show that that’s not true, go right ahead. It’s not that difficult to quantify team defense or team bullpen quality.

by ubelmann on May 5, 2008 10:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

Sox

The Sox infield is good. But I was mostly thinking of the outfield. When you have Nick Swisher in center, you let a lot of balls get into the gaps.

It’s not that difficult to quantify team defense or team bullpen quality.

Yeah, that’s the problem. But I’m not one to insist on numbers when the numbers haven’t caught up to reality. When you ignore phenomena because you haven’t figured them out yet, you unintentionally bias the stuff you have figured out, which is one reason offense is relatively overrated.

I just know that the Twins have consistently done better than the experts say they should in this decade, when the experts primarily focus on team offense and starting pitching. The two constants in the Twins favor are good team defense and good bullpens. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 6, 2008 12:14 AM EDT up 0 recs

It

It wouldn’t be that hard to test, you’ld just correlate team defensive efficiency with the difference between a team’s winning percentage in one run games an the team’s percentage outside those games.

by AdamOnFirst on May 6, 2008 2:58 AM EDT up 0 recs

That's a good test

Not sure how accurate team defensive efficiency is. I think there are other variables involved in figuring out how zones work. Some work is being done to delineate line drives from fly balls, etc. But it’s not quite there yet.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 6, 2008 10:46 AM EDT up 0 recs

Tail wagging the dog

Yeah, that’s the problem. But I’m not one to insist on numbers when the numbers haven’t caught up to reality.

Numbers don’t catch up to reality – they reflect it, as a record of what happened in the gmaes. If the numbers haven’t caught up to reality, maybe the flaw is in the perception of reality, not the numbers.

I was just paging through the last few years’ standings on ESPN.com, and I’m not seeing much of note, although admittedly my knowledge of most teams’ bullpens is pretty limited.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on May 6, 2008 10:27 AM EDT up 0 recs

Hmm

Are you saying that the science of baseball is perfect? Or do you think the science of baseball can improve? My opinion is that it’s a relatively young science. We can learn a lot by studying the numbers, but they don’t give us perfect clarity quite yet. We still have to interpret them, or apply lenses to them, if you like, to draw conclusions from the numbers. That’s what I meant about “numbers catching up with reality”. I don’t know if 20-20 vision is even possible (I highly doubt it). But hopefully we’ll at least improve the lenses so that we can easily answer such question as: To what extent does defense help a team win more close games? Or , to what extent does a strong bullpen help teams win more close and late games?

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 6, 2008 10:38 AM EDT up 0 recs

Maybe an overstatement

I don’t mean to say that I think we’ve perfected analysis of baseball stats, although my post may have come out sounding that way. What I’m saying is that it’s possible, even likely, that when perception and analysis differ, it’s the perception that’s wrong. I’m sure the avenues of study on this topic haven’t been exhausted, but that also doesn’t mean that the existing data is bad.

Also, I think I conflated a couple of issues – the discussion kind of moved to 1-run games rather than just “ability to win close games”, and they’re not exactly the same thing. I would note that I believe that there are probably some areas, like maybe bullpen ability and managerial skill, that especially contribute to success in 1-run games, but I think that luck is such a big factor that it outweighs them in all but the very largest sample sizes (and maybe even in those).

I think maybe we’ll eventually come up with some data on what helps teams outperform their Pythagorean records (the Twins would be a good subject for that research, since they haven’t underperformed their Pythagorean this century), but I don’t think know that it will ever be that useful for 1-run records.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on May 6, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

Numbers

Numbers don’t catch up to reality, but measurement systems do. The final result is out there, but it’s possible we haven’t figured out how to accurately get it yet.

by AdamOnFirst on May 6, 2008 11:00 AM EDT up 0 recs

Good

That’s a good way of putting it. The hardest part about philosophy is expressing it clearly.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 6, 2008 11:27 AM EDT up 0 recs

Measurement systems

are an attempt to describe reality, in the hope that, the description is helpful in understanding, and possibly, successfully intervening in that reality.

That is not the same thing as being able to “control” what happens out there, just that you improve the odds that you come out ahead, given the factors you are looking at, by acting in accord with what you understand the numbers to mean.

Of course, it’s always the things you don’t know that kill you… especially in baseball.

by Old Twins Cap on May 7, 2008 11:55 AM EDT up 0 recs

Close Games

I know defense and bullpen is the BIGGEST piece in winning a lot of close games, but I still think it takes luck to turn a .500 team into a .650 team in close games.

And the rest of the division may not have any advantage in close games, but the best teams will still ultimately probably score a lot more runs than they’ll give up, and that will lead to a lot of wins.

The funny thing about our defense, is I don’t actually think it’s so great. It’s decent. Lamb is marginal at third. Everett was hurt and subpar at short while he was still playing. Tolbert isn’t better than average (at best) there, and neither is Punto (in my opinion, at short). Harris is, well, at least he’s only playing second now. Our outfield defense is very nice, especially our arms. But the fact that pretty much all of our infielders are marginal fielders doesn’t add up to a fantastic defense, just a decent one.

by AdamOnFirst on May 5, 2008 10:58 PM EDT up 0 recs

Nice discussion

This is the kind of discussion that makes me glad I checked online after midnight before going to bed. A few comments:

- I’m going to agree with ubelmann that the Royals are definitely improved; I think Alex Gordon was rushed and under pressure last season, and should be much improved this year, and Mark Teahen reminds me a lot of Joe Mauer—he may never hit 25 homers in a season in his life, but he can put a baseball just about anywhere on the field he wants to. I’m expecting the Royals to make the biggest improvement of any team in the Central (which I admit isn’t much of a stretch given how bad they’ve been these past few years).

- I’d also be willing to say that Chicago was better than their record last season, but so far this year I’m not so sure. While I do think that the impact of ‘good chemistry’ is overrated by most observers, I do think that being on a team with bad chemistry - a bunch of unlikeable players who aren’t winning - breeds its own kind of malaise. If the Sox continue to struggle, I wouldn’t be surprised if the players started tuning out Guillen by the All-Star break, which would put ownership in a pickle—my understanding is that Guillen is still a fairly popular manager in Chicago, but that could change with another summer of underachieving.

- I don’t think the Tigers or Indians are permanently damaged; heck, the weaknesses we’re seeing this year were weaknesses last year - Cleveland had no bullpen to speak of and the Tigers were old and slow - and each team still won over 90 games. cmath is welcome to talk about pitching and defense and about how offense is overrated, but go back and look at some of the teams that are today perceived as having been ‘defense first’ ballclubs:

- 1987 Cardinals? 2nd in the NL in runs scored
- 2001 Mariners? Far and away the best defensive and offensive team in the league that year
- 2002 Angels? 2nd in the AL in fielding percentage and 1st in defensive efficiency—also 5th in runs scored

Heck, y’know who led the AL in defensive efficiency in 2007? The Red Sox, who also had the best offense.

If we’re talking about making the playoffs, and thus being one of the best four or five teams in the league, I don’t see how offense is overrated in that comparison. Even the 2006 Twins weren’t a bad offensive team—they outscored their opponents by over 100 runs and had a Pythagorean expectation of 93 wins. You can compensate for not having the best offense in the league, but it’s hard to compensate for having one of the worst.

- I don’t want to sound as though I don’t appreciate that the Twins have played well - I hoped my original essay would make it plain that I think there are few players who are playing ‘over their heads’ (unlike in 2006, where most of the hitters had career years), and that the club could continue on at about this rate, though I don’t expect it. Even so, just maintaining this pace - two games over .500 for each 30 in the books—means that with 12 games to play the Twins would be standing at 85-75. Certainly that’s better than anybody would have anticipated, but if 85-75 is leading the Central in mid-September? It won’t be the Twins performance that people will notice; it’ll be that the division went from best to worst in baseball in a heartbeat.

- Lastly, I can accept that defense and a good bullpen can help ‘win the close ones’, but that’s not going to be the difference between a contender and a cellar-dweller. Even in 2006, the team played only 31 one-run games, winning 20 of them. Meanwhile, the 2006 Twins won 34 games where the winning team won by five or more runs. Yes, they won more blowouts than they played one-run games—in this age of higher-octane baseball, that’s typical for a good team. So it’s not unreasonable to assume that a team that isn’t even averaging five runs a game isn’t going to win enough to contend in the long run. Simple as that.

And cmath, I like Newcastle in the bottle. This probably means we’ll have to settle somewhere other than the ballpark, of course.

by dwintheiser on May 6, 2008 2:08 AM EDT 0 recs

Guillen

Noooooooooo, they can’t get rid of him! His insanity coupled with his popularity are going to doom the Sox to a decade of mediocrity. He’s like the best friend of the rest of the Central!

formerly known in these parts as adamb

by ravenfly on May 6, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

Follow-up: first pass with actual numbers

I thought I’d take a first pass at quantifying the ‘no rest’ effect with a casual study, focusing at first on the 2001 Twins. Interestingly, while the two Twins swoons did coincide with the two long stretches of games the Twins played post-All Star Break, the numbers don’t show that the Twins actually lost all that many ballgames without rest:

Twins overall record: 85-77 (.525)
Within 5 games of rest day: 44-42 (.512)
6-10 games after last rest: 19-15 (.559)
11-15 games after last rest: 12-14 (.462)
16-20 games after last rest: 8-5 (.615)

The 11-15 games after last rest looks good for the premise, but the 16-20 games segment belies the presumption of the ‘no rest’ premise—taken together, the Twins were actually a game above .500 in games played 11 or more games after their last rest day with a slightly better winning percentage (.5128 vs .5116) than their record within 5 games of their last rest day.

Not sure if this represents a flaw in the premise (which is still supported by the ‘big picture’ view) or a flaw in the construction of the casual study, but figured I’d share.

One factor that might not make 2001 a good sample year for such a study—every team in the league had a one-week forced layoff after September 10; the Twins were already well out of contention by then, though.

by dwintheiser on May 11, 2008 4:18 PM EDT 0 recs