but he was right along with hoards of other Twins followers.  Didn't take a genius to realize the Ortiz signing was a massive mistake.

I am betting on at least three sentences that begin with something along the lines of: "As I wrote back in..."

Let's hope we get to read the "I told you so entry" when Jason Kubel starts to smurf the ball out of the Smurfpark soon.

"If you assume that they [the Twins] would have managed a .500 record if those same starts had been made by Scott Baker, Kevin Slowey, and Matt Garza, then going with Ponson and Ortiz cost 2-3 wins. If you assume that Baker, Slowey, and Garza would have won more than half the time, then 4-5 games were lost."

These are really tough assumptions to make.

- Of Ponson's five losses, two were 4-3 losses. Could a different pitcher pitched better, perhaps only allowing two runs? Possibly. We can give one bonus win here, maybe two if you assume that whoever is replacing Ponson could have racked up consistent 7-inning, two-run outings. Two other losses were 8-2 losses. Those are really hard to imagine that a better pitcher could have 'won', because even the best pitching teams in baseball don't get one-run outings every time out. Ponson's only really bad loss came in KC; that one was pretty clearly a game where even a league-average performance could have garnered a win. Ponson's two wins probably would have been wins by any pitcher (12-5 and 9-1, both over Tampa).

Let's call a swap for Ponson +2 wins.

- Ortiz started the season well; he was 3-0 out of the gate and the Twins didn't allow more than 2 runs as a team in any of those games. He also had good run support (23 runs in those same 3 games), so we can say that a lesser pitcher likely still would have won those three games. (Though, to be fair, a bad outing in the Yankee win might have proven disastrous.) Ortiz then took a loss and a no-decision in his next two starts despite still pitching well - just three runs allowed for the staff in both games, a 3-1 loss, and a 5-3 win. Hard to say that a different pitcher could have won both of those games, and might well have ended up losing the second (unless we're assuming that the 'new' pitchers never have bad outings).

Then a 6-4 loss to Tampa and a 6-3 loss to Chicago were subpar but not disastrous, while the 15-7 pounding in Cleveland was disastrous. There's definitely one win possible in there, but the chance of a second, in my mind, gets washed out by the chance that the earlier win could have been a loss. Then the 6-5 loss in Milwaukee, which boiled down to one bad pitch, and the 9-8 loss in Texas, which boiled down to more than one.

Let's be generous and say another +2 wins for Ortiz.

Now we look at Silva. Of Silva's five losses, three were in games in which the Twins were shut out; hard for even Santana to win in that situation. Add in the 7-1 loss to Cleveland, which looks bad but likely wouldn't have been a win for any mortal pitcher, and you've got just one Silva loss that another pitcher might have salvaged; the 14-4 loss to Texas.

Now you have Silva's three wins: 5-4 over Seattle, 11-3 over Detroit, and 4-2 over Toronto. Add in Silva's no-decisions: a 3-2 win for Nathan over Tampa and a 7-3 loss by Crain to Cleveland, and you've got at least two games in there that an average or even above-average performance might have lost.

Call it -1 win for Silva.

So if you assume that Slowey, Baker, and Garza between them never have a bad outing, sure, you can claim that the Twins would likely be three games, maybe even more, ahead of where they are today. All it really takes is one bad outing for each of them and the Twins haven't moved an inch from reality.

Lastly, keep in mind that this is the same guy who, at the start of the season, chose to lump Silva in with Ortiz and Ponson (http://www.aarongleeman.com/2007_03_25_baseballblog_archive.html#8115765339508813530);  notice that Silva isn't anywhere in the analysis anymore? If you presume that Gleeman would have started the season with Slowey, Baker, and Garza instead of Ponson, Ortiz, and Silva, I think it's rational to conclude that the Twins would still be precisely where they are today.

--
David Wintheiser

When you take the whole package, probably a wash at best.

Regards,

For instance, the Twins might have tried to sign Wes Helms from Florida instead of Jeff Cirillo; that would have netted them about a .265/630 batting line or so. Or maybe Tony Graffanino? He's hitting below .200/500. Craig Counsell? Pedro Feliz?

It's simply not true to say that you should be able to sign someone and expect to get a 'league-average' player, because the way talent is distributed in baseball (the far right end of a bell-shaped curve), there are going to be more players below average than above it. And the players who are significantly above average? Probably not free agents - at least not at the Twins level of affordability. Could the Twins have signed someone and gotten pleasantly good numbers? Absolutely. Should anyone have expected that, or even league-average numbers? Not if they know what they're talking about.

This isn't a complete rejection of Gleeman's argument by any means; just a recognition that, if you define 'average' as 'mean production', then significantly more than 50% of the players you're looking at are going to be below average.