2012 State of the Ville: The Minnesota Twins

A lot of how we view things in life hinges on what our expectations were going in.  For instance, I might be the only person on Earth who thought The Hangover was lame. It generally seemed to meander from one stupid joke to the next, with no real plot, consistency or cleverness. A random slew of occurrences tacked on one after another, each dumber than the last. This isn’t pulling the highbrow routine either, you’re talking to a guy who’d rank Spaceballs among the more humorous films of all time. If you happen to disagree with that opinion, all I can say is “What’s a matter Colonel Sanders, chicken?”  Sometimes a bit of cleverness can go a long way.

On the other side of the coin in this discussion is Zombieland, a movie I’ve watched at least a few minutes of somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 times over the past couple years. I knew nothing about this film going in, believe it started as 15 minutes of throwaway TV late one Friday night. Instead, it only took 15 minutes to decide it was going to the DVR (right about this scene), and it’s been safely there ever since.

But does either movie truly deserve those extremes? Is one truly a waste of 90 minutes, while the other is worth pausing on each and every time it’s scrolled past? Probably not, but that’s the roles they occupy for me. Taste accounts for some of that, things will always strike people differently, but the bigger issue has always seemed to be expectations going in. If ten people even insinuate that something should be in the “best of all time” conversation in a given category, it had better be amazing as a prerequisite, or it’ll be torn apart.

If, on the other hand, you expect nothing, simply feeling like your time hasn’t been wasted is all you need.  Not to mention, if you’re like me and have a neurotic streak, the effect here can be powerful enough to make you avoid certain popular things entirely, if too much has already been said. (Yes, I’m talking to you Moneyball, got all I needed from the book and the movie screwing up the ending to the Twins-As ALDS game would be too much to take, already know that going in.)

So be careful with your hype, judicious in doling out praise and damn near unwilling to utter the phrase “best ever” in regard to what you see and do in life. I’d rather hear a spoiler, than be lured into a subpar dining/watching/reading experience under false pretense. At least the spoiler hasn’t robbed me of my time. Personally, the only thing I feel comfortable in tagging with the “best” label these days is the Best Sports Weekend Of the Year, but we’ll be discussing that in greater depth shortly. If you doubt me, come to St. Paul next weekend and I’ll prove it.

All this expectations talk is currently front of mind because I watched a ballgame a couple nights. Not just any ballgame, but my first Minnesota Twins game of the spring. It was poorly played, some players looked out of sorts, there was just a general “WTF?” air to the whole thing. But it did nothing to dampen my enthusiasm about the impending start of baseball season, for three reasons:

Going to ballgames is fun.

Things have gotta be better than last year.

I’m just not expecting very much.

There’s no accompanying detailed breakdown to back up the feeling that we’re dealing with a fair-to-middling ballclub this year, just the recent body of work of the guys on the roster. Some statgeek could probably craft a plausible argument for the potential of a Twins playoff berth, but take it from me, it’s just not going to happen. By the way, I do not use the term “geek” in a derogatory fashion, as I’m no stranger to getting my geek on when the opportunity arises. For years I thought I was a nerd, but as this handy Venn diagram points out only falling into geek territory, as the requisite social awkwardness isn’t present. Well, at least not unless there are girls around. Good news finding that out, the family might finally invite me back to Thanksgiving dinner now that I've shed that stigma.

So I'm good with the geek community, and love a lot of the work they've done with the numbers.  Some of it is a little out there, but in a year featuring Tim Tebow, Jeremy Lin and a Super Bowl champion who lost two games to the Redskins, should we really be counting anything out?  The answer, in the case of the Twins, is yes, and there's only one number you need to know: Three.

As in the Theory Of the Three "Ifs", something I just made up, but seems perfectly plausible after 10 minutes of noodling it over.  It's a simple premise, when you find yourself trying to convince your own brain that something is going to work out, make sure you don't have more than three contingencies that need to be met in order for that to happen.  I don't care if we're talking about being on time for a flight ("If I can get out of the office 30 minutes early"/"If traffic isn't too bad"/"If the security line is moving") or getting away with killing a drifter ("If I wasn't caught on the security cameras at that gas station"/"If there are no traces of DNA in the car"/"If I can burn these bloody clothes without the neighbors noticing") the Three "If" tipping point is not something you want to mess with.  We're not talking in absolutes here, any theory that doesn't have to do with physics has exceptions, just general trends of probability to serve as signposts on our way.

Take the question of, "Can the Wild make the playoffs?" we asked a few months ago.  While trying to delude ourselves into thinking it was possible, we went down a path that sounded something like:

"If we can get lights out goaltending"
"If Heatley can get back to being an elite scorer"
"If Koivu can make the leap to a 30-goal guy"
"If Bouchard and Latandresse can stay healthy"
"If the young defenseman can develop"

That's five already and we're barely past the first line.  All those "Ifs" are what had most of the world thinking a 10-12th place finish was in store.  Sure they shined us on for a few months, looking like they'd pull it off, but that's the thing about the "Ifs" over the course of a long season.  They're hard to sustain, and the chances of failure increase exponential with each one you add.

Where the wiggle room comes in on Three "If" Theory is the statments you're making.  Crazy and unexpected things happen in life, but at some point the question becomes how crazy is too crazy?  Say my statment about Heatley's season had been "If Dany Heatley scores 100 goals this season"?  Well then you're probably good with that "If" alone, maybe one more, and it's time to start printing postseason tickets...but you're also delusional.  "If I lost 20 pounds" and "If I won the Powerball" could be the criteria for my getting a date with Kate Upton, but that's a requirement that's nigh impossible (by that I mean the 20 pounds, it is March after all).

Point being, unreasonable "Ifs" are like cheating at golf, you can do it, but you're only fooling yourself.  You'll look ridiculous telling people you're a scratch golfer, then duffing one off the first tee, but no more that you would by uttering the phrase "If Ponder can just throw 40 TDs, the Vikes will be in the playoffs".  No sh*t Sherlock.

There are however, many borderline situations that deserves scrutiny in this regard.  Consider this season's Timberwolves team, and these Three "Ifs" about contending for the playoffs:

"If Ricky Rubio lives up to the hype."
"If Kevin Love takes the next step from All-Star to superstar."
"If Rick Adelman does an amazing coaching job."

Borderline plausible, but kind of getting out there on the edge, right?  I admit to being more negative than most, but assuming Love would be the best power forward in the game, Rubio would turn in a season of Top 10 PG play and Adelman would be in the coach of the year conversation?  That's not quite delusional homerism, but it is homerism writ large.  Change the question to making the playoffs and all of the sudden you're tossing "If Nikola Pekovic is a good NBA center" into the mix, and you've found a big time exception to the theory.  But as I said, these are just tea leaves, not absolutes.

In roundabout fashion, we return to where this whole post was supposed to be going, the Twins, and their laundry list of "Ifs".  By my count, the tally so far:

"If Mauer and Morneau can stay healthy and productive" (Being charitable by lumping those into one)
"If Pavano and Liriano can regain their 2010 form" (Ditto)
"If Scott Baker can put together a full season of what we've only seen from him a few months at a time"
"If Nick Blackburn can resemble a capable major league pitcher on a regular basis"
"If Denard Span's concussions and Ben Revere's arm don't derail our hopes for capable outfield play"
"If the 38-year old/Japanese free agent bust/perennially-hyped underachiever can offer something at short"
"If whoever these guys in the bullpen are can find a way to get the job done"
"If Matt Capps doesn't make me feel homocidal 2-3 times a week"
"If the Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers and Angels all don't win 95-100 games"

Now that, my friends, is far too many "Ifs" to offer much in the way of hope.

But you know what?  It doesn't really matter.  Sure we'd all like to see a winner, and the Twins have pulled rabbits out of the hat before (albeit against weaker division opponents), but even if they don't make the playoffs, are we really that bad off?

I know that I'm not supposed to admit this, and perhaps it makes me a poor fan, but I'd rather watch a bad Twins team play at Target Field than a good one at the Metrodome.  Having a winning team to boot would be the best of both worlds, but at least if they're lousy, it won't be too tough to deal.

A day at the ballpark is once again fun around these parts and, at the risk of sounding like a Cubs fan, I'm going to enjoy mine win or lose.  But if it's not too much to ask, staying about .500 through the end of July would be appreciated.  Like I said, expectations.

The 2012 Minnesota Twins: Expect Mediocrity, Deal With Success!

If they want to use that slogan, I won't even charge them.