Thread: Murphy: Inteview with Terry Ryan

Durability is going to be a prerequisite to meeting the counting totals that HoF voters seem to like. 300 wins and at least 1 Cy Young, mainly. Bert didn't reach either of those but he got into he top 10 all time in strikeouts, and 10's a round enough number and has a nice ring to it. If I had to guess, I'd wager that that is mainly what put him into the Hall, in most voters' minds.

As far as free agency goes, IP doesn't directly speak to a player's ability to help a team win aside from the fact that durability allows the team to conserve resources. Your 4.5 ERA innings eaters are both a cheap commodity and allow you do things like carry 3 catchers. That's well and good but winning games is about run differential.

Originally Posted by Willihammer

Durability is going to be a prerequisite to meeting the counting totals that HoF voters seem to like. 300 wins and at least 1 Cy Young, mainly. Bert didn't reach either of those but he got into he top 10 all time in strikeouts, and 10's a round enough number and has a nice ring to it. If I had to guess, I'd wager that that is mainly what put him into the Hall, in most voters' minds.

As far as free agency goes, IP doesn't directly speak to a player's ability to help a team win aside from the fact that durability allows the team to conserve resources. Your 4.5 ERA innings eaters are both a cheap commodity and allow you do things like carry 3 catchers. That's well and good but winning games is about run differential.

Well, he also had a low ERA, 242 complete games, 60 shutouts, and was 3rd in Ks when he retired and still sits 5th. It's amazing he didn't get in much, much sooner.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

I don't think that's the argument. The problem with innings pitched is that they tell you nothing about how effective the pitcher was. You might be able to make some kind of reasonable guess about how effective they were, but it's still just a guess. Good evaluation of a pitcher needs to measure both their innings logged and their effectiveness.

I think, in part, this is the Twins problem. They're more worried about health than talent. Bad players who are healthy are still bad players.

Consider Ryan's position when questioned by the Executive Committee about why Baltimore and Oakland were playoff teams and that they had substantially lower budgets than the Twins. Answers are required. We know from public announcements that injury to key players was cited. The failure of starting pitching would also have cited a reliance on older players (with higher salaries) who basically "broke down". The use of younger pitching would definately have been mentioned for those two as a reason for their success. Clearly "health" would have to be stated as a directive. The transition to a younger (and better!) rotation would take time. The desired "inexpensive-quality-youth" would need to be developed because they can not be acquired by signing free agents (they aren't inexpensive). The plan would be to slash payroll, acquire some young pitchers by trading surplus OFers, and to lose in the short-term in order to select early in the Draft to obtain the best young pitchers. But they can't publicly say "we plan to lose and save money"--so they "spin" to deflect criticism and to bide time. If there truly was a change in draft philosophy for pitchers--it must be "downplayed", else they would be caught in a whirlpool of negativism for past decisions.

Yeah the shutouts are the other big thing I think.

The other thing with the durability/IP discussion is that, there is a math you have to do with starters where you weigh their 4th time mowing down a lineup more heavily than the 3rd, and the 3rd more heavily than the 2nd, and so on. When a guy can come out for the 8th and 9th inning and pitch as effectively as a setup man, that really propels a starter's value in my mind. And certainly with 60 shutouts, Bert did plenty of that.

Originally Posted by Kwak

Consider Ryan's position when questioned by the Executive Committee about why Baltimore and Oakland were playoff teams and that they had substantially lower budgets than the Twins. Answers are required. We know from public announcements that injury to key players was cited. The failure of starting pitching would also have cited a reliance on older players (with higher salaries) who basically "broke down". The use of younger pitching would definately have been mentioned for those two as a reason for their success. Clearly "health" would have to be stated as a directive. The transition to a younger (and better!) rotation would take time. The desired "inexpensive-quality-youth" would need to be developed because they can not be acquired by signing free agents (they aren't inexpensive). The plan would be to slash payroll, acquire some young pitchers by trading surplus OFers, and to lose in the short-term in order to select early in the Draft to obtain the best young pitchers. But they can't publicly say "we plan to lose and save money"--so they "spin" to deflect criticism and to bide time. If there truly was a change in draft philosophy for pitchers--it must be "downplayed", else they would be caught in a whirlpool of negativism for past decisions.

I remember Ryan sounded almost disgusted when he talked about the new approach to drafting pitchers. Said something like: there's been this complaint for awhile we don't go after power pitchers so we did this year...the look on his face when saying it was like he was sniffing a fart...

What you're saying makes some sense, but I'm just not sure our front office is that deceptive. They've been under this model for a long, long time independent of what was going on with revenues, talent, or anything else.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

What you're saying makes some sense, but I'm just not sure our front office is that deceptive. They've been under this model for a long, long time independent of what was going on with revenues, talent, or anything else.

You don't think our front office is that deceptive?

Originally Posted by ThePuck

You don't think our front office is that deceptive?

I don't think they're being deceptive about wanting high draft picks to draft high end pitching....because I don't think that's the plan. They are spinning, no doubt, but the rest of that isn't something I'd get behind. Not yet at least.

You guys need to pitch your theories to Ventura for his television show (if it hasn't been cancelled).

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

I don't think they're being deceptive about wanting high draft picks to draft high end pitching....because I don't think that's the plan. They are spinning, no doubt, but the rest of that isn't something I'd get behind. Not yet at least.

That doesn't mean they aren't deceptive enough to do it. Maybe you mean they are that deceptive...but, in this case, they aren't being so? :-)

I wonder where I can pick up my Terry Ryan jersey...

Originally Posted by drjim

If you had weak pitching depth, would you rather have 190 ip of 4.35 era or 130 ip of 3.35 era? I would probably take the first option, even though in many ways he is probably a lesser pitcher.

Everyone wants a solid workhorse, but I don't think the innings should be Ryan's main attraction. A front office could still catch a break and get 200 innings out of a pitcher who had above average stuff but who previously had troubles staying healthy. It's quite unrealistic to expect a durable guy with lesser talent, like Correia, to suddenly gain a 8.0 K/9 and a 1.200 WHIP.

As fans, what would excite us more this year, Kevin Correia somehow managing 200 IP with his career average 4.54 ERA, 1.411 WHIP and 6.0 K/9, or 120 IP from Rich Harden with his career average 3.76 ERA, 1.296 WHIP and 9.2 K/9?

Originally Posted by ThePuck

That doesn't mean they aren't deceptive enough to do it. Maybe you mean they are that deceptive...but, in this case, they aren't being so? :-)

Sorry, too conspiracy-theory for me. I just don't think they've learned their lesson.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Sorry, too conspiracy-theory for me. I just don't think they've learned their lesson.

I don't disagree with you on this. That doesn't mean I don't think they're deceptive enough to do it. They've blatantly lied so often, I take everything said by members of the FO with a huge grain of salt...especially Ryan

Ok, serious question. Is pitching a lot of innings is a predictor of being durable and pitching a lot of innings in the future?

So perhaps you can tell me how these statements mesh because they seem to be contradictory.

Originally Posted by drjim

I prefer Pelfrey and Correia is more or less the same guy [as Joe Saunders] (outside of handedness).

Originally Posted by drjim

I would argue IP is the single most important stat for a starting pitcher. By far.

The average innings pitched per year over the last 3 years:

Joe Saunders 197IP
Kevin Correia 157IP
Mike Pelfrey 139IP

Originally Posted by thrylos98

here are 4 mediocre pitchers on the leaderboards for IP for 2012

Justin Masterson: 206.1 IP, 4.93 ERA, 1.454 WHIP, 6.9 K/9, 1.81 K/BB
Jon Lester: 205.1 IP, 4.82 ERA, 1.383 WHIP, 7.3 K/9, 2.44 K/BB
Ian Kennedy: 208.1 IP, 4.02 ERA, 1.301 WHIP, 8.1 K/9, 3.40 K/BB
Clayton Richard: 218.2 IP, 3.99 ERA, 1.235 WHIP, 4.4 K/9, 2.55 K/BB

and this blast from the near past, closer to home

2011 Carl Pavano: 222 IP, 4.30 ERA, 1.360 WHIP, 4.1 K/9, 2.55 K/BB

Do those exceptional IPs made them good pitchers?
No.

Compare those numbers with those of the kid from Washington they "shut down" per club's choice.
Who is the better pitcher?

1. I'm not going to say that IP is a stand alone stat but I think it's a darn good stat. I personally like WHIP the best but those dang home runs keep that from being a stand alone stat.

2. There are exceptions to every rule. You will find some clunkers. With WHIP its Minor, Edwin Jackson and Derek Holland.

3. I would take all 4 of those pitchers you list in a heartbeat. I'd take the 3 WHIP clunkers that I listed in a heartbeat as well.

4. Comparing those pitchers to Strasburg is like comparing a Ford Focus to a Mercedes. The Ford is a great car but everyone is gonna take the Mercedes... Even drjim I assume. Strasburg may have the best arm to hit the scene in decades. Now compare those 4 pitchers to McCarthy and the discussion is interesting.

I just feel IP is an important stat but like any important stat... It's a moving target. James Shields may have tossed 227 innings in 2012. It doesn't mean he won't throw only 84 innings in 2013.

Originally Posted by twinsnorth49

Pitcher A, 200 IP, 7.2 K/9, 3.50 ERA. Pitcher B, 200 IP, 5.6 K/9, 5.25 ERA

How is IP the most important stat here?

It's obvious that Pitcher A is from California and Pitcher B is from Yellowknife.

I'm going with Pitcher A in this scenerio.

However, you won't find many Pitcher B's. Pitching that poorly usually stops them from reaching that many innings.

Originally Posted by Oxtung

So perhaps you can tell me how these statements mesh because they seem to be contradictory.





The average innings pitched per year over the last 3 years:

Joe Saunders 197IP
Kevin Correia 157IP
Mike Pelfrey 139IP

Clear statistical support of Saunders over Pelfrey and Correia in my opinion. I agree.

Originally Posted by Oxtung

The average innings pitched per year over the last 3 years:

Joe Saunders 197IP
Kevin Correia 157IP
Mike Pelfrey 139IP

Nice. Average in the year Pelfrey was injured.