A couple weeks ago someone was talking to me about a local radio personality freaking out about playing "the Twins way" and how that needs to stop because "the Twins way is the worst way". That got me to thinking, are the Twins still playing "the Twins way"?
I've always thought of "the Twins way" as being "doing all the little things right." Things like running the bases, sacrificing runners over, not committing errors, throwing strikes and not walking batters.
For base running I decided to use fangraphs.com's Ultimate Base Running statistic. UBR uses linear weights to determine how much value a player gives (or loses) doing things like going first to third on a single, getting thrown out trying to stretch a hit, or advancing on a throw. It uses 0.0 as league average so a negative number is below average and positive is above. This is an individual stat so I may be using it out of context taking the team's UBR, but work with me here.
I'm not trying to say sacrifices are the best way to win games, but I am saying the Twins have always valued it as a skill and talked up their players being able to get it done.
We could get into a debate about errors if we wanted to, but again since that's what the Twins organization likes to talk up (instead of other more useful stats like UZR or TZL) that's what we'll use.
For pitching we're going to look at zone% (the percentage of all pitches thrown in the strike zone) and BB/9.
Below all the playoff teams' stats are in bold while all stats that were below league average (American league average in the case of sac hits) are italicized. (Also, I projected sac hits and errors to a full 162 game season.)
Year UBR SH E ZONE% BB/9
2002 1.8 33 74 57.4 2.73
2003 4.3 31 87 53.3 2.48
2004 -5.5 38 101 56.1 2.63
2005 -4.1 51 102 56.0 2.14
2006 10.1 52 84 54.6 2.23
2007 1.3 34 95 52.5 2.63
2008 17.8 31 108 53.6 2.50
2009 21.0 42 76 50.3 2.89
2010 -2.0 46 78 48.7 2.37
2011 -2.4 42 119 45.9 3.04
2012 3.6 34 107 45.4 2.91
2013 1.1 58 72 46.2 2.56
Conclusions:
- The Twins have not, as a team, run the bases well with any sort of consistency regardless of whether they were good that year or not.
- The Twins sacrifice A LOT! There were years (2005, 2006, 2009, 2010) when they sacrificed more than double the American league average. There were years when they sacrificed more than the major league average. That's crazy to me.
- Certainly pitching the Twins way has not changed at all.
- The past two years errors became an issue (also in 2008, which was not a playoff year, but still above .500), but improving that this year has not made a significant difference in overall team performance.
- Clearly four of these five categories strongly represent the Twins philosophy as they are consistently above average. But their record hasn't been nearly as consistent, especially the last couple years. It can't be the worst way, it helped contribute to six division titles in nine years. But there are obviously more important things that need to be focused on.
Currently reading: A Game Of Thrones by George R. R. Martin
Currently reading: Marvel Knights Spider-Man (2004)
In the stereo: Tape Deck Heart by Frank Turner
I think people tend to think of me as someone who doesn't like anything. And I guess that's not entirely unfounded. But I'm also someone who generally likes things. If it's something I want to like, more often than not, I'll find something to enjoy about it. I like new Alkaline Trio. I like Angels & Airwaves. I like the Fantastic Four movies. I'm not saying they're great, I'm just saying I enjoyed them. I liked Spider-Man 3. Everyone else seems to hate that one too. The point is, I usually like stuff, so that's why it's so weird to me that 3 times in the last week or so I've disliked (or at least been very disappointed in) something that everyone else seem to love.
Example 1: Man Overboard's new album, HEART ATTACK. It's not bad, but it's going to have to grow on me. Not like their self titled album which completely blew me away. So I was pretty shocked when in the new issue of Alternative Press they write an article about MAN OVERBOARD being a ho-hum record that paled in comparison to what The Wonder Years were doing at the time. I've never liked The Wonder Years (they rub me the wrong way) and have never talked to anyone who preferred them over Man Overboard. They also write about how the new album will give The Wonder Years a run for their money because it's immediately captivating. Who are these people who didn't like MAN OVERBOARD? Who are these people who prefer The Wonder Years? And how is HEART ATTACK in any way better than MAN OVERBOARD? Or even BEFORE WE MET, which was all old songs!? Dumb.
Example 2: Jimmy Eat World's new album, DAMAGE. To be honest, I haven't liked a new Jimmy Eat World album when in was first released since... Ever. They always have to grow on me and then I end up loving them. But I cannot imagine this one growing on me. It's boring. There's nothing as poppy and fun as A Praise Chorus or Pain. There's nothing as dark and moody as Polaris, Goodbye Sky Harbor or Disintegration. It's all just mid tempo, bland rock songs. So I look up some reviews of it, expecting everyone to feel the same way I do about it and instead they love it! Allmusic.com gave it 4 1/2 stars, better than any album since BLEED AMERICAN. AP gave it 4 stars, on par with FUTURES and CLARITY. There is no way it is that good. I'll keep listening to it (and hopefully end up eating my words again), but I just do not understand how anyone could be that pumped about this album. Also dumb.
Example 3: Man Of Steel. (There may be some spoilers below, continue at your own risk) I wanted to love this movie. I really did. The trailers would give me the chills. Zack Snyder always showed promise as a director and a story by David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan should have been amazing! Reviews were good, word of mouth was good, I'd read good things about test screenings, all signs pointed to amazing. Now I didn't hate it, but I certainly didn't love it. There were a couple issues early. I didn't like how Lois immediately figured out Superman's identity, and the first half was kind of disjointed and had some weird flow issues, but I could look past all that pretty easily. But then I kept noticing all sorts of awkward product placement that completely pulled me out of the story. Did they really need to fight inside both an IHOP and a Sears? And most of the fight scenes were really cool, but the collateral damage seemed a bit out of hand. I understand that it was Superman's first fight as Superman, but even then, he should have been a lot more concerned about how many innocents were hurt or killed when he went flying through a gas station, blowing it up. Do you realize how many innocent people had to have been killed during their fight? I feel like Superman would never have allowed that. Then at the end, one family is in danger and suddenly he cares so much about innocents that he has to snap Zod's neck to stop him? Superman doesn't kill. It wasn't enough to make me grind my teeth (X3 was), but it still didn't follow the spirit of what a Superman story should be. So again I checked reviews, expecting others to agree with me. Instead Harry at aintitcool.com called it the best super hero movie ever made, everyone else I've talked to loved it, and even the City Pages, who hate EVERYTHING, liked it! Dumb.
Of course I don't think I'm the only person to ever disagree with popular opinions of things, it just struck me odd how it happened three times over the course of about a week. And even more odd that I was the one who didn't like said things while popular opinion did.
Currently reading: A Game Of Thrones by George R. R. Martin
Currently reading: Silver Surfer (2003)
In the stereo: Yeezus by Kanye West
