Cliff Lee

[Captain Hook]

Originally Posted by reds44

Not at all. The goal is to win Championships, not make the playoffs.

Your certainly right about that but sometimes you have to crawl before you walk.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by TRF

So the Braves of the 90's did nothing for you then either?

IMO the Twins model is more fun to watch than 90+ loss seasons.

The Twins of the aughts have not had anyone the caliber of Smoltz, Avery, or even Glavine.

Not sure what the comparison is. The Braves lost a lot in the postseason, sure, but they played in many World Series. Unlike the Twins and A's, the Braves took a lot of series to the last out of the 7th game.

Twins and A's are One and Done Central.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Will M

#3 its possible the Twins/As model hasn't had more playoff success because they play in the AL. you have to get by the power house mega payroll teams to get a shot in the series. whereas in the NL the competition is better.

#4 Perhaps the Twins model hasn't done better because they lack the TOR starters needed for playoff success. well the Reds of 2010-2015 should have these guys.

Or it's possible that it hasn't worked out because 4 teams make the playoffs each year. Even with even odds, that's 4 playoff appearances for every WS appearance. With a little "bad luck" you could easily have a 25% chance of making the WS each time and have a Braves like run. Heck, if anybody had shut-down pitching it was the Braves and they only got to the WS once.

Nate Silver did a study of this and found just 3 factors which had predictive value for making the WS, assuming you make the playoffs:

• A power pitching staff, as measured by normalized strikeout rate.
• A good closer, as measured by WXRL.
• A good defense, as measured by FRAA.

We can cite anecdotes supporting any argument we want, but people have tried to tease this out. You can give yourself a slight edge above & beyond what your won/loss record would suggest your chances are, but only a slight one.

Bottom line is your chances of making the WS if you don't make the playoffs is zero. If you can build and sustain a playoff caliber team, then you can start worrying about tweaking the composition of that team to better your odds in the playoffs. But you have to get there first.

Yes, the goal is to win championships. But worrying about tweaking the composition of your team to up your WS odds slightly before you even have a playoff caliber team is like debating what color to paint your house before you have a blueprint.

[MWM]

Yes, I get the whole playoff randomness thing. But the Twins are 3-16 in the playoffs in the last 18 years. That's not being on the bad side of the odds of winning a playoff series.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by MWM

Yes, I get the whole playoff randomness thing. But the Twins are 3-16 in the playoffs in the last 18 years. That's not being on the bad side of the odds of winning a playoff series.

They've done a heck of a Washington Generals impersonation in the AL.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by MWM

Yes, I get the whole playoff randomness thing. But the Twins are 3-16 in the playoffs in the last 18 years. That's not being on the bad side of the odds of winning a playoff series.

They also have played only teams that are as good or better than them. And how many of those starts were made by Johan Santana, who was the best pitcher in the game at the time?

Sure, 3-16 is horrible. But that doesn't necessarily make your specific explanation any more accurate.

What are the odds of a playoff caliber team going 3-16 against equal or better competition? Good teams have bad stretches, bad stretches of 20 games even, especially against very good competition. A poor W-L is one thing. Naming a specific cause supported only by anecdote is another thing entirely, regardless of how much sense the story makes. I'm sure I could look at their team and come up with another logical explanation.

I'm not sure that you (and most people for that matter) appreciate how randomness looks. Even given a completely random sample, a few observations are going to appear to result from something other than luck.

Let's agree that having 2 great starters makes you more likely to advance in the playoffs. The question becomes: how much of an advantage is it? Is it worth chasing a 2 ace model even if it decreases your chances of making the playoffs in the first place? What if it only means decreasing your chances of making the playoffs in the future? These aren't easy answers. Given the choice, give me the playoff team with 2 aces. But I'm going to be MUCH more focused on building an organization that is capable of sustaining 85+ wins before I'm going to chase an ace at any cost.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

They also have played only teams that are as good or better than them. How many of those starts were made by Johan Santana, who was the best pitcher in the game at the time.

Sure, 3-16 is horrible. But that doesn't make your explanation any more accurate. Show me the odds of a playoff caliber team going 3-16 against equal or better competition. Good teams have bad stretches -- bad stretches of 20 games even -- especially against very good competition.

A poor W-L is one thing. Naming a specific cause supported only by anecdote is another thing entirely, regardless of how much sense the story makes.

I'm certain there's not just one cause, but if I'm guessing, it's the relative strength of the pitching.

By the way, Santana had one of those three wins. The problem with the Twins is that they followed up Santana with Silva, Lohse, and Radke on too many occasions.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

I'm certain there's not just one cause, but if I'm guessing, it's the relative strength of the pitching.

By the way, Santana had one of those three wins. The problem with the Twins is that they followed up Santana with Silva, Lohse, and Radke on too many occasions.

And how many of those losses? I don't disagree that the Twins weren't exactly lining up aces. But as you point out, that's one factor among many. If you can get multiple aces on your way to building a sustainable 85+ win team, great. But I'll take 85+ wins every year and a regular shot in the playoffs over the model of one or two good runs a decade. Of course, either would be better than what we got 2000-2009.

There's a reason the Twins haven't gone the 2 ace model. It's nearly impossible to do on a mid-level (or less) budget. The Diamondbacks just about destroyed their franchise going that route. It worked, but they've averaged 74 wins a season since Schilling left, made one decent run in the Brandon Webb era and aren't anywhere close to being a playoff caliber team today -- largely because they have next to no organizational depth.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

And how many of those losses?

Two--but one when he was just 23

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Two--but one when he was just 23

He was awesome at 23, I'm not sure how that matters. So the Twins were 1-2 in starts by the best pitcher in baseball. Stuff happens.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

And how many of those losses? I don't disagree that the Twins weren't exactly lining up aces. But as you point out, that's one factor among many. If you can get multiple aces on your way to building a sustainable 85+ win team, great. But I'll take 85+ wins every year and a regular shot in the playoffs over the model of one or two good runs a decade. Of course, either would be better than what we got 2000-2009.

There's a reason the Twins haven't gone the 2 ace model. It's nearly impossible to do on a mid-level (or less) budget. The Diamondbacks just about destroyed their franchise going that route. It worked, but they've averaged 74 wins a season since Schilling left, made one decent run in the Brandon Webb era and aren't anywhere close to being a playoff caliber team today -- largely because they have next to no organizational depth.

The Twins' problem is that they went from ace to garbage in their starting pitching sequence.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

The Twins' problem is that they went from ace to garbage in their starting pitching sequence.

Let's assume that the Twins had 50% odds of winning those games. We should have expected 9 or 10 wins. So they lost 6 more games than expected. Holding the overall quality of the team steady, how many more wins do we think they would have had given another ace? Johan lost more games than he won. So given them another ace who pitches 5 or 6 games. That gives them what -- 3 more wins? 4? 5? I think that's a stretch, but they're still losing more than they're winning. Does that win them a championship? That doesn't even get them to the championship. It maybe advances them to the 2nd round once.

Again, my point remains, 2 aces are better than 1. But it's an irrelevant detail if you aren't in the playoffs to begin with. Trying to build a specific type of team instead of just one that wins a lot is part of the reason this franchise has stunk for the last decade.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

He was awesome at 23, I'm not sure how that matters. So the Twins were 1-2 in starts by the best pitcher in baseball. Stuff happens.

Twenty-three is awfully young, and it was his first year as a starter--he'd only thrown 108 innings that season.

[WMR]

If we're trading Jay Bruce, it needs to be for a player who will contribute for MULTIPLE seasons.

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Or it's possible that it hasn't worked out because 4 teams make the playoffs each year. Even with even odds, that's 4 playoff appearances for every WS appearance. With a little "bad luck" you could easily have a 25% chance of making the WS each time and have a Braves like run. Heck, if anybody had shut-down pitching it was the Braves and they only got to the WS once.

Nate Silver did a study of this and found just 3 factors which had predictive value for making the WS, assuming you make the playoffs:

• A power pitching staff, as measured by normalized strikeout rate.
• A good closer, as measured by WXRL.
• A good defense, as measured by FRAA.

We can cite anecdotes supporting any argument we want, but people have tried to tease this out. You can give yourself a slight edge above & beyond what your won/loss record would suggest your chances are, but only a slight one.

Bottom line is your chances of making the WS if you don't make the playoffs is zero. If you can build and sustain a playoff caliber team, then you can start worrying about tweaking the composition of that team to better your odds in the playoffs. But you have to get there first.

Yes, the goal is to win championships. But worrying about tweaking the composition of your team to up your WS odds slightly before you even have a playoff caliber team is like debating what color to paint your house before you have a blueprint.

There are some teams that are built for the playoffs and some that are not. It is not about regular season winning percentage, it's not just about what WMR talks about, deep starting pitching. It's more about having a dominant bullpen and closer.

You can pick which teams will go deep in the playoffs by looking at their bullpen. It's what killed the Braves for so many years. So many stories of teams struggling in the playoffs, then they get strong pen, and then viola, they make the Series. If you can turn a game into a 6 or 7 inning affair, you stand a great chance of winning a 5 or 7 game series.

Just look at the teams that made the Series over the last 20 years, that is what unites them all. Not TOR pitching, but a dominant pen. With a dominant pen, teams have been able to toss the 25% theory out the window and make the World Series more often. And likewise, teams with an average pen (maybe a good closer but nothing else) never make it past the first or second round.