Terry Ryan’s Minnesota Twins

[Crash Course]

See: http://www.netshrine.com/20040518.html

Discussion welcome and appreciated.

[nyy26wc]

I don't see how the data supports the spin you're trying to put in it.

In the AL East, the Yankees had to beat out teams with 58, 209, 229 RCAA/RSAA over the past 3 years.

In the AL West, the division winners had to beat out teams with 218, 189, 131 RCAA/RSAA.

In the AL Central, the division winners had to beat out teams with -3, 53, 79 RCAA/RSAA.

If you take the grand total of the 2nd place teams in the AL Central, you get 129 over the 3 year span. The AL East 2nd place team exceeded that figure in 2 single seasons and the AL West 2nd place team exceeded it in all 3 seasons.

While the Central's 2nd place team had a total of 129, the AL East teams had an average of 165 and the AL West had an average of 179. This means that the average 2nd place team in the AL East would finish more games over .500 in a single season than the Central's would if they were putting to play 3 season's worth of games.

And the standings themselves verify this. The average AL East 2nd place team has finished 18.3 games above .500 per year. The grand total for the AL Central is 18 games over .500 in 3 years. Put another way, that's 18.3 games per 162 games compared to 18 games per 486 games.

[Crash Course]

I'm making the case that a bad team is a bad team - and that there is a point where it does not matter how bad you are compared to another bad team. Bad is bad.

For example, in 2003, the Tigers were terrible. No question. Also, in 2003, Tampa Bay was a very bad team - not as bad as the Tigers, but bad nonetheless.

Now, does it make sense to say because the Tigers were almost three times as bad as the D-Rays that they should have lost 3 times as many games? Not really. In fact, the Tigers had 119 losses and TB had 99.

A 1.2 to 1 ratio is much more close than the difference between the RCAA and RSAA for DET and TB.

Anyway, what I'm going with is that when a good team (like NY or Boston) plays TB in 2003. They should win most of the time. And, when a team like Minny plays the Tigers in 2003, they should win most of the time.

Maybe the score in the NY-TB game is 10-2 because of the RCAA/RSAA differences - and the score in the Twins-Tigers game is 4-1 because of the RCAA/RSAA differences - but, at the end of the day, a win is just a win.

Good teams should beat bad teams.
I looked at the divisions each year and counted the number of good teams and bad teams in each group.

The ratio of good to bad, within the division, seemed very close in most cases.
Yes, in the AL East and AL West the good teams were really really good and in the AL Central the bad teams were really really bad. But again, that usually lends more towards the margin of victory than the actual act of getting a victory, no?

[mgoettsche]

Hmmm, I agree that folks should not discount Ryan's success in putting together the Twins...he's put together a very competitive team on a shoestring budget and should be commended. He has obviously put together a team that is better than other AL Central rivals.

However, piggybacking on Lee's stats, its pretty clear to see that the 2nd place team in the AL Central from '01-'03 occupies a lower tier than the 2nd place teams in the AL East, winning 12 games less per year. If we agree with your argument, that each division has the same number of strong and weak teams, then follow the premise that each division's strong teams beats the weak teams within that division (regardless of score), where does this 12 game differential come from? Non-divisional games played against better competition.

I think most people polled would agree that the Twins have only been the 5th or 6th best team in the AL since 2001, and that any of the 2nd place teams from the AL East or AL West probably would have won the Central instead of the Twins in any of those years. The White Sox are at best the 7th best team and more likely the 8th or 9th best. I think this is the main point Ryan's detractors are driving at -- the Twins, while pretty good, are fortunate to be playing in a division with the ChiSox instead of the BoSox, Mariners, and A's.

[Crash Course]

FWIW -
AMERICAN LEAGUE
2001-2003

WINS W
1 Mariners 302
2 A's 301
3 Yankees 299
4 Redsox 270
5 Twins 269
6 Angels 251
7 Whitesox 250
8 BlueJays 244
9 Indians 233
10 Rangers 216
11 Royals 210
12 Orioles 201
13 Devil Rays 180
14 Tigers 164

I think I'm not doing a good job of explaining my logic on this one. :( Let me think of another way to explain it. More to come.

[Crash Course]

Does anyone know where I can find the American League Team-By-Team Standings Grid for 2002 or 2003? This might help me explain my point.

[Joseph]

ESPN.com, in the baseball section, under standings

[Crash Course]

Nah, that's only for 2004. The link on the 2002 page reverts back to 2004 on splits. I tried that already.

[Crash Course]

Let me think of another way to explain it. More to come.

Bless the Bill James Baseball Handbook, it had the win grid that I needed.

I did this for 2002, for an example - here goes:

In 2002, Minnesota got 39 wins off weak sisters CLE, KC, and DET.
In 2002, New York got 36 wins off weak sisters TOR, BAL and TB.

That year, NY won 10 games from Boston - about 1/2 the games they played.
That year, Minny won 11 games from Chicago - about 1/2 of what they played.

Minny played .500 v. Boston in 2002 - spliting 6 games.
NY won 4 of 6 from the Chisox in 2002.

My point - - - -

Both DIV had their 3 weak sisters. Both had their strong 2nd place team.

If you switched NY and Minny - the Yankees probably would have had the same # of wins from CLE, KC, and DET - - and the Twins probably would heave beat TB, BAL and TOR for 36 wins.

Minny already proved it could play .500 v. Boston in 2002. Let them play 19 times and the Twins should get 10 wins there (same as NY did). The Yankees would get about 11 wins from the Chisox, like Minny did, if they had played them 19 times in 2002.

Both the Twins and Yankees would have been good, and likely 1st place teams, in the AL East or Central. So, why say the Twins got a break from being in the Central? Did they get more of a break than NY got in the East?

[mgoettsche]

I agree that if one switched the Yanks and Twins in 2002, it is likely that the Twins and Yanks would have posted similar records against the "weak sisters". I don't know if the Twins would have beat out the BoSox in 2002, however...they certainly could have, but I wouldn't extrapolate the Twins ability to win 10 of 19 against the BoSox based on a 6 game sample. As an example, it just as easily could be 9 of 19...a net loss of 2 wins for the Twins from their 11 wins over ChiSox, 2 wins that would swing the East to Boston's favor looking at the actual '02 records.

Also, I think you stretch the point to call the ChiSox a STRONG 2nd place team in 2002...they finished with a .500 record, and won 12 less games than the BoSox. Boston was clearly a stronger team than Chicago, and based on this, I feel comfortable saying the Yanks had a tougher challenge.

But you do have a valid point that on the whole, the hype about the competitiveness of the AL East is unjustified...it really has just been 2 teams, with the rest being poor to middlin'.

Just curious, if you were to rank the relative strengths of the divisions over the past three years, where would you put the AL Central?

[Crash Course]

If I had to put a rating on each one, on a scale of 1 to 5 - with 5 being the strongest - I would break it down like this, for the period 2001-2003:

AL West 2.3
AL East 2.1
AL Central 2.0

It's that close for me.

[Crash Course]

I think you stretch the point to call the ChiSox a STRONG 2nd place team in 2002...they finished with a .500 record,

According to RCAA, they were the 5th best hitting team in the AL that year, and according to RSAA, they were the 8th best pitching team. They were 1 of only 7 teams in the AL to have positive RSAA and RCAA.

[gyb13]

In 2002, Minnesota got 39 wins off weak sisters CLE, KC, and DET.
In 2002, New York got 36 wins off weak sisters TOR, BAL and TB.CLE, KC, DET combined for 191-294 (.394)
TOR, BAL, TB combined for 200-285 (.412)
So the East weak sisters were slightly better - that's a 3-gm difference, per team, in the standings

Then you factor in the schedule.
MIN, CHW combined for 175-148 (.542)
NYY, BOS combined for 196-127 (.607)
So the East weak sisters not only had a better record, they also had more games against two much tougher teams

thus, I'm not so sure that just switching them around would yield the same records

[Crash Course]

The three game difference is so small, you have to throw it out as meaning no difference. The groups or CLE/KC/DET and TOR/BAL/TB were equally bad.

As far as the east weak sisters matching the record of the central weak sisters and doing it against tougher teams, that may not be true. We would have to look at the HTH results of the sisters versus their strong brothers, MIN/CHW and NY/BOS, respectively, no?

[gyb13]

no, you'd have to look at SoS

[Crash Course]

no, you'd have to look at SoS

Go for it:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rpi?season=2002

Minny is not that far behind Bos and NY in RPI. No reason why they would have not won the AL East if they were there instead of them.

[mgoettsche]

According to RCAA, they were the 5th best hitting team in the AL that year, and according to RSAA, they were the 8th best pitching team. They were 1 of only 7 teams in the AL to have positive RSAA and RCAA.


Even if one was to say the ChiSox were a strong team that year (which I don't believe for a second...slightly above average to me), I don't think anyone would say they were better than Boston.

[mgoettsche]

Go for it:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rpi?season=2002

Minny is not that far behind Bos and NY in RPI. No reason why they would have not won the AL East if they were there instead of them.

True...if they were in the AL East with Boston, they'd win the division about half the time. Being in the AL Central with the ChiSox, however, and they'd win the division almost every time.

[Crash Course]

Even if one was to say the ChiSox were a strong team that year (which I don't believe for a second...slightly above average to me), I don't think anyone would say they were better than Boston.

How did the White Sox fair v. Boston in 2002?

[SmedIndy]

How did the White Sox fair v. Boston in 2002?

Head to head isn't the way to determine that - all kinds of anomalous quirks reside there.

[Crash Course]

HTH is the only way to say "Team A was better than Team B" for me.

If NY has a 10-5 record where they beat TB 10 of 10 and lost to Oakland 5 of 5, and Oakland has a 10-5 record where they beat NY 5 of 5 and went they split ten games with Boston, you would say they were equal teams?

[mgoettsche]

HTH is the only way to say "Team A was better than Team B" for me.

If NY has a 10-5 record where they beat TB 10 of 10 and lost to Oakland 5 of 5, and Oakland has a 10-5 record where they beat NY 5 of 5 and went they split ten games with Boston, you would say they were equal teams?

Yep, Chicago had the edge 4-2 against Boston that year.

Unfortunately the HTH logic most often ends up being circular. Surely you don't imply that Baltimore was better than the Twins in 2002, even though they had a 5-1 HTH record?

Lets go down the rabbit hole just a bit in 2002:

Angels won the WS.
Twins won the HTH against Angels
Baltimore won the HTH against Twins
Detroit won the HTH against Baltimore

[Crash Course]

How did the Tigers do HTH v. the Angels 'tho? ;)

[SmedIndy]

HTH is the only way to say "Team A was better than Team B" for me.

If NY has a 10-5 record where they beat TB 10 of 10 and lost to Oakland 5 of 5, and Oakland has a 10-5 record where they beat NY 5 of 5 and went they split ten games with Boston, you would say they were equal teams?

A. Five games isn't much of a data set!

B. How can you tell in the above situation? You're mixing Tampa AND Boston with Oakland and NY?


Example which blows it all out of the water:

2003 - San Francisco won 100 games. Montreal won 83.

Montreal beat SF all seven times they met.

There is no way Montreal is better than SF last year, yet they won all seven games.

[mgoettsche]

How did the Tigers do HTH v. the Angels 'tho? ;)

Reminds me of the old joke from Coming to America:

A man calls the waiter over to the table:

MAN: Waiter, will you taste the soup?
WAITER: Is there something wrong with it?
MAN: Just taste it.
WAITER: OK. Where's the spoon?
MAN: A-ha... ;)

[Crash Course]

mgoettsche - I love that scene. Eddie nailed the old white man part.

2003 - San Francisco won 100 games. Montreal won 83.

Montreal beat SF all seven times they met.

There is no way Montreal is better than SF last year, yet they won all seven games.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rpi?season=2003
says the two teams were a lot closer than you would think.

And, if SF was better, why could they not beat the Expos at least one time out of seven?

[SmedIndy]

Because baseball is like that.

Why did the 1985 Royals go 3-10 against the moribund Mariners?

[SmedIndy]

The more I think about it - the arguement about head to head is much the same as what the Massey ratings has when they do their upset path chain.

This year, in College Football:

Louisiana Monroe beat Louisiana Lafayette who beat Middle Tennesse State who beat Troy State who beat UAB who beat Memphis who beat Ole Miss who beat Florida who beat LSU.

[Crash Course]

One game v. 6 or 19.
Any given Sunday, etc.
Doesn't equate.

[SmedIndy]

Yes it does. Think of series in baseball vs. games. And you still haven't explained the '85 situation. There are others. Shall I go on?

[Crash Course]

Actually, I would like to know your source for the 1985 situation. It could help me. Is it online?

[nyy26wc]

One game v. 6 or 19.
Any given Sunday, etc.
Doesn't equate.

You're right. The bigger sample size (albeit still a small sample size) makes the baseball claim even sillier than the football game.

By virtue of the larger sample size, the 2002 Tigers would have the better claim to the championship than Louisiana Monroe.

[mgoettsche]

I'm still curious about the Twins/Orioles in '02. If you truly believe the White Sox were better than the Red Sox that year, than you must also believe the Orioles were better than the Twins that year. And that would put an entirely new twist on the argument that the AL East was only marginally better than the AL Central, since one of the weak AL East sisters *spanked* the AL Central champ.

[Crash Course]

Did I say the White Sox were better than Boston in 2002?

[SmedIndy]

It's on Retrosheet, no?

[Crash Course]

Thanks Smed. I'll look for that.
Q for you: Team A plays Team B and Team A, in the HTH, beats Team B the majority of the time. What does that mean to you?

[SmedIndy]

Team A beat Team B a majority of the time they played.

It doesn't factor in:

1. Matchups
2. Injuries
3. Pitching rotation quirks
4. When in the season they played

Thinking of those, if team B played team A in April and September. (Happens). Team B, early on, had two regulars out for a short time and faced Team A's best three pitchers against their 3, 4, and 5. Team B loses 2 of 3.

Team B then cruises to a pennant and rests some regulars. By doing so, they lose to team A again 2 of 3.

I can see situations like that affecting HTH matchups all the time. They don't tell me anything unless put in the proper context.

[Crash Course]

Would not agree that, when Team A plays Team B and Team A, in the HTH, beats Team B the majority of the time, that at the time they played each other, Team A was the better team?

[SmedIndy]

Just looked at another case: 2001 Yanks.

Losing records to AL teams:

Minnesota (2-4)
Anaheim (3-4)
Seattle (3-6) (expected)
Texas (3-4).

There is no way in heck the Yankees were worse than Anaheim, Texas and Minnesota.

[SmedIndy]

Would not agree that, when Team A plays Team B and Team A, in the HTH, beats Team B the majority of the time, that at the time they played each other, Team A was the better team?


NO! They just happened to win a couple of games here and there and it could be a myriad of reasons. That's why they play 162 and count 'em all. The NA in 1871 wanted to count just series wins, not total games, and that didn't work out too well.

For a larger sample size, 2001 Florida Marlins were 10-9 versus the Braves.

[Crash Course]

Just looked at another case: 2001 Yanks.

Losing records to AL teams:

Minnesota (2-4)
Anaheim (3-4)
Seattle (3-6) (expected)
Texas (3-4).

There is no way in heck the Yankees were worse than Anaheim, Texas and Minnesota.

Then why did they lose to them when they played them? Smed, I think what you're trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the best team does not always win, or more precisely, win the majority of the time, when playing someone HTH? Sort of the Billy Beane logic, right?

[SmedIndy]

Then why did they lose to them when they played them?

Because that's the way it works in baseball. Some days you win, some days you lose, some days, it rains. Even the best teams can get beat, go in a mini-slump, you name it.

Basically, the Yankees lost some games they should have won. Much like Toronto dropping 11 of 19 to Tampa Bay last year. Much like the '69 Pilots winning 7 of 12 from an 86-76 Senators team.

[mgoettsche]

Did I say the White Sox were better than Boston in 2002?

Not directly, but all your arguments indicate this is what you believe! :rolleyes:

I'm glad you added the caveat "that at the time they played each other" in a later response. I can buy that...like Smed says, matchups, injuries, and other quirks can have a huge impact on the result on a given day. I don't buy into luck, so certainly for 4 of the 6 games that CWS played BoSox in 2002, they were the better team. However, this does not mean that they'd win 2/3 of HTH matchups if they were to play 9/18/30/90 games, and certainly does not mean that they have a better overall team.

And back to the original argument, if you take just this 6-game series HTH against Boston as proof that CWS had a strong team, then should you say that Baltimore had a strong team since they clearly dominated the Twins in 2002?

[Crash Course]

Can you dominate someone is 6 games, or merely prove that you are capable of playing with them?

[sweaver]

Can you dominate someone is 6 games, or merely prove that you are capable of playing with them?
Your argument has become circular and your reasoning faulty.

[Crash Course]

Your argument has become circular and your reasoning faulty.

Actually, I disagree.

My point in this is that the Twins, as a contender, had one team in their division to beat (the White Sox) and had other teams in their division to beat up on (KC, DET & CLE). And, it is my opinion that this situation was not unique only to the AL Central. The AL East has had the same structure (2 good teams, 3 weak) the last few years. And, the AL West, at times, has had only two good teams in the division. Therefore, it is unfair to say the Twins were lucky to play in the AL Central - and that's the only reason why they do well. Why not say that the A's were lucky to play in the West and the Yankees were lucky to play in the East (because they too only had one team to beat)?

That's been my point and others (in this thread) have taken it upon themselves to run down all these others paths..........and, I was stupid enough to follow. Making that decision (to chase these gooses) was my 'faulty reasoning.'

I'm taking myself off the stand now. Hey, it's an opinion piece and the point is my opinion.

If anyone who thinks the Twins were lucky to be in the AL Central, and that's the only reason why they have been a contender, wants to get on the stand and allow themselves open to the type of questioning that I have been under here, please, go for it.

Give me some proof on why the Twins do not deserve praise for their deeds because they play in the AL Central. I would love to see it.

[SmedIndy]

Toronto is not 'weak' like Detroit and KC and Cleveland have been 'weak' in the past.

Last year, Minnesota totally dominated Detroit, Tampa, and Oakland (a head scratcher) head to head - and muddled through the rest of the league. In 2002, Minnesota had a 50-25 divisional record, winning the games that counted, really.

In 2002, they had three bad teams and a mismanaged team. In 2003 they beat two OK teams.

[sweaver]

Perhaps I do not understand the premise. Is the idea that, if New York and Minnesota were to switch divisions, then New York would have won the Central and Minnesota the East the last two years? I would disagree, because Boston would have beaten Minny in 2003, and with New York taking the Central, Minnesota would have been out of the playoffs because Seattle would have taken the Wild Card. Boston also may well have beaten Minnesota in 2002, as the records were 1.5 games apart, and it is my opinion that the Central was sufficiently weaker to have made that difference "no difference," if Boston and Minnesota played in the same division.

If you are suggesting New York and Boston switch with Minnesota and Chicago, then Minnesota would almost certainly have won the division in 2002. But in 2003, with a four-game difference between Minnesota and Toronto (as well as Chicago), I think that a Blue Jay team in the race does not trade Shannon Stewart to the Twins, and quite possibly wins the East.

So yes, I think the Twins have reaped benefits from playing in the Central.

[Crash Course]

I think the Twins have reaped benefits from playing in the Central.

Tremendously more so that NY has reaped from playing in the East or Oakland has from playing in the West? How?

[nyy26wc]

Tremendously more so that NY has reaped from playing in the East or Oakland has from playing in the West? How?

By having substantially weaker 2nd place teams to have to beat out.

[sweaver]

Tremendously more so that NY has reaped from playing in the East or Oakland has from playing in the West? How?
I attempted to illustrate that in my post. I believe, if circumstances (and divisions) were reversed, Minnesota would at most have won one division title in the last two years, not two. I consider that a benefit.

[mgoettsche]

I attempted to illustrate that in my post. I believe, if circumstances (and divisions) were reversed, Minnesota would at most have won one division title in the last two years, not two. I consider that a benefit.

Second that...same contention I made.

[Crash Course]

Perhaps they may not have finished 1st. But, Minny would still have a very good team regardless of their division. The would be a contender, each of the last 4 years (including 2004), in any of the AL's divisions. And, they do it with a very small payroll. They deserve praise - - and they deserve praise without the added qualifier of "they should thank the AL Central."

This is my opinion. Others may differ. That's fine.

But, for me, I have yet to be convinced that anything in this post is not true.

[mgoettsche]

Perhaps they may not have finished 1st. But, Minny would still have a very good team regardless of their division. The would be a contender, each of the last 4 years (including 2004), in any of the AL's divisions. And, they do it with a very small payroll. They deserve praise - - and they deserve praise without the added qualifier of "they should thank the AL Central."

This is my opinion. Others may differ. That's fine.

But, for me, I have yet to be convinced that anything in this post is not true.

I agree with everything you say here!

[sweaver]

Minnesota has been very successful the last few years, and I do not dispute that. This has been because of their very productive minor league system, as has been stated. But they have not been more successful than the A's, unless you use the very spurious (in my opinion) line of reasoning that since the Twins got to the second round of playoffs once, they are more successful than the A's, who haven't.

However, I believe that the Twins could have been more successful if Terry Ryan had been astute in trades as well. The Twins have more outfielders than they can use, and a desperate need for middle infielders and pitchers. That he hasn't addressed this need is to Ryan's debit, and has cost the Twins even more success.

[Crash Course]

FWIW, just tonight, I was looking over the Twins SOS from 2002 to 2004: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rpi?season=2002

I know concede that they have had an easy go at it.