You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?903-Why-Minnesota-Twins-Scott-Diamond-Continues-to-Shine

I really think he has the makeup and will have the success that Mark Buerhle had in his prime. I really can't see him posting an ERA over 4 for a season.

About the only 3rd starter type the Twins have any luck with as of late. I like how he cuts his fastball forcing righties to respect that part of the zone which also reminds me of Buerhle. I think that as much as anything is his key to pitching so well.

As usual, very fine technical analysis from Parker. My only quibble is comment about run support. While I don't doubt the number, I do know Diamond was on the hill for both of the Twins biggest explosions this year--19 runs vs. the Orioles and 14 in Cleveland. Take out those blowouts and Diamond's support isn't quite as impressive. I'm sure most quality starters, Diamond included, would settle for five runs every start rather than getting 14 and 19 and then getting two or less a number of times. I checked the records and in the six games that Diamond started and the Twins lost, the team scored 0, 1, 2, 3, 3, and 2, that is 11 runs in six games.

As usual, very fine technical analysis from Parker. My only quibble is comment about run support. While I don't doubt the number, I do know Diamond was on the hill for both of the Twins biggest explosions this year--19 runs vs. the Orioles and 14 in Cleveland. Take out those blowouts and Diamond's support isn't quite as impressive. I'm sure most quality starters, Diamond included, would settle for five runs every start rather than getting 14 and 19 and then getting two or less a number of times. I checked the records and in the six games that Diamond started and the Twins lost, the team scored 0, 1, 2, 3, 3, and 2, that is 11 runs in six games.

Great point! Those two games definitely affect that 'run support' average.

I do know Diamond was on the hill for both of the Twins biggest explosions this year--19 runs vs. the Orioles and 14 in Cleveland. Take out those blowouts and Diamond's support isn't quite as impressive.

That definitely puffed up his RS/9 number a bit but the team still scored five or more runs for him (including 11 runs three other times) in another six starts. It would still be an above average rate even if those two outings were removed.

And, again, there's an element of "luck" at play there considering, in the 19-run outburst, he allowed 5 runs.

I really can't see him posting an ERA over 4 for a season.

Blinded by his half season ERA?

Blinded by his half season ERA?

Diamond is looking more and more like a quality #3 pitcher. A guy who strings together above average seasons mixed with more pedestrian 4.00 ERA seasons... Not unlike a Brad Radke type. Given the shift in baseball over the past decade, a 4 ERA is pretty average. Just looking at Diamond and his peripherals suggests that he's going to slide back to a slightly above average to average pitcher.

In any case, I'll take it. The Twins badly needed a guy to step up in the rotation and Scott looks to be that guy for a few years.

if it's sustainable, I'll take it... Keep in mind that while his velo is nothing special (low 90s from what I understand) that is coming from a lefty, not a right hander. That does make a bit of a difference as well.

That definitely puffed up his RS/9 number a bit but the team still scored five or more runs for him (including 11 runs three other times) in another six starts. It would still be an above average rate even if those two outings were removed.

And, again, there's an element of "luck" at play there considering, in the 19-run outburst, he allowed 5 runs.

It would be an above-average rate, but only by half a run. The Twins are averaging 4.5 runs a game, and with the 19 and 14 run games removed, the Twins have scored 75 runs in Diamond's 15 starts, for a tidy 5.0 runs/game. Using a stat that I created, which I call Expected Win-Loss (or xWL for short), Diamond SHOULD have a record of 12-5, which is pretty decent (if this stat already exists elsewhere, I abdicate the credit for it, I just haven't seen it anywhere). The stat is calculated by calculating how many earned runs the bullpen would be expected to surrender in however much of that particular game the starter leaves to the bullpen, then adding that to the earned runs the starter gave up. If the resulting number is less than the average runs scored by the offense, the starter is credited with an "expected win", indicating that he pitched well enough to win your average game. If that number is more, the pitcher is given an "expected loss", meaning the starter did not do enough to put the team in position to win the average game. The calculation is below.

Expected Runs Allowed=(((9-X)/9)*Y+Z)

X=Starter's IP in that game
Y=Bullpen ERA
Z=Starter's Earned Runs in that game

Below are the xWL for all Twins starting pitchers this year

Blackburn: 5-12
Deduno: 3-3
DeVries: 6-4
Diamond: 12-5
Duensing: 3-5
Hendriks: 3-5
Liriano: 8-9
Marquis: 2-5
Pavano: 4-7
Swarzak: 1-3
Walters: 4-3

Thus, the only Twins pitchers that have consistently given the team a chance to win are Diamond, DeVries, Walters, and Deduno. Every other starter was more likely to not keep the team in the game.

Tell me why we aren't seeing another Brian Duensing situation here? Looked really good his first run through the league. Once everybody saw him, he regressed. Duensing is a good arm for the pen and some spot starts,but I wouldn't want to count on him in the rotation for an exgtended period. I have a feeling this is closer to the real Diamond.

@Cap'n --

Good research (and yes, there is an Expected Wins (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?mode=viewstat&stat=55) stat already). I wasn't trying to contest that he would have lost any of those starts he had this year -- after all, he's allowed over 4 runs in just one of his starts. The idea is that if his ERA does go up to 4-ish (which, based on the xFIP and his very high DP rate of 22%, it will likely creep northward) and his run support drops to close to the league's average of 4.4, then the record next year will probably not be as impressive as it is this year.

It would be an above-average rate, but only by half a run. The Twins are averaging 4.5 runs a game, and with the 19 and 14 run games removed, the Twins have scored 75 runs in Diamond's 15 starts, for a tidy 5.0 runs/game. Using a stat that I created, which I call Expected Win-Loss (or xWL for short), Diamond SHOULD have a record of 12-5, which is pretty decent (if this stat already exists elsewhere, I abdicate the credit for it, I just haven't seen it anywhere). The stat is calculated by calculating how many earned runs the bullpen would be expected to surrender in however much of that particular game the starter leaves to the bullpen, then adding that to the earned runs the starter gave up. If the resulting number is less than the average runs scored by the offense, the starter is credited with an "expected win", indicating that he pitched well enough to win your average game. If that number is more, the pitcher is given an "expected loss", meaning the starter did not do enough to put the team in position to win the average game. The calculation is below.

Expected Runs Allowed=(((9-X)/9)*Y+Z)

X=Starter's IP in that game
Y=Bullpen ERA
Z=Starter's Earned Runs in that game

Below are the xWL for all Twins starting pitchers this year

Blackburn: 5-12
Deduno: 3-3
DeVries: 6-4
Diamond: 12-5
Duensing: 3-5
Hendriks: 3-5
Liriano: 8-9
Marquis: 2-5
Pavano: 4-7
Swarzak: 1-3
Walters: 4-3

Thus, the only Twins pitchers that have consistently given the team a chance to win are Diamond, DeVries, Walters, and Deduno. Every other starter was more likely to not keep the team in the game.

I suspect that Liriano's record is within the standard deviation of being equal to Deduno's (and probably the same goes for Duensing and Hendriks)

And runs allowed do not tell the story really. That dropped ball by Nishioka the other day was called a double and went on the pitcher's record. Nuts.



As far as Diamond goes, one of the major changes this season from last is his drastic decrease in BB/9. I think he leads the league or is close to it in that stat. His K/9 is just 4.9, which is even below Brad Radke's career average mark. If he gets his K/9 up to 6-7 (where De Vries' is, btw) it would be great. At least he is one of the hopeful signs of the 2012 season.

Tell me why we aren't seeing another Brian Duensing situation here? Looked really good his first run through the league. Once everybody saw him, he regressed. Duensing is a good arm for the pen and some spot starts,but I wouldn't want to count on him in the rotation for an exgtended period. I have a feeling this is closer to the real Diamond.

Duensing never had success against righties, even when he was pitching well. He struggled to get his OPS against righties under .750 even in his good seasons. You can't succeed as a starter if you can't get right-handed batters out. That's the difference.

Diamond, on the other hand, is getting shelled against lefties, which is incredibly odd and not likely to hold as the sample size grows.

Diamond is looking more and more like a quality #3 pitcher. A guy who strings together above average seasons mixed with more pedestrian 4.00 ERA seasons... Not unlike a Brad Radke type. Given the shift in baseball over the past decade, a 4 ERA is pretty average. Just looking at Diamond and his peripherals suggests that he's going to slide back to a slightly above average to average pitcher.

In any case, I'll take it. The Twins badly needed a guy to step up in the rotation and Scott looks to be that guy for a few years.

I can't find much to disagree with here, I just found the "no ERA above 4" comment to be ridiculous.

I thought this was interesting, when I looked up the Swinging Strike rankings on Fangraphs:

Jason Vargas- 7.2%
Mark Buehrle- 7.2%
Wandy Rodriguez- 7.1%
Scott Diamond- 7.0%
Randy Wolf- 7.0%
Joe Saunders- 6.9%
Paul Maholm- 6.8%
Clayton Richard- 6.8%

I omitted a couple righties in there but this group of finesse left-handers stands out towards the bottom of the rankings, since generally they have done pretty well. The downside with these guys is that the margin for error is low and they are very dependent on their defense (and ballpark). Missing of course are the countless finesse lefties that haven't been able to sustain success or achieve any in the first place. Diamond has been a very pleasant surprise but it's hard to say exactly what he is at this point.

I can't find much to disagree with here, I just found the "no ERA above 4" comment to be ridiculous.

I expect him to hover right around that mark most seasons so yeah, predicting that he'll never top it is a little premature.

Duensing never had success against righties, even when he was pitching well. He struggled to get his OPS against righties under .750 even in his good seasons. You can't succeed as a starter if you can't get right-handed batters out. That's the difference.



Which is :banghead::banghead::banghead: -worthy when TR, Gardy, Andy and Nick Nelson continue to insist that the Dunce is starting material.

Why do they continue with this proven and obviously pre-destined to fail strategy in a losing season, when you have nothing to lose seeing what Vasquez and any one of the "4H'ers" readily available (Hendriks, Hernandez, Hermsen, Hirschfield) have to offer?

Where has Nick insisted that Duensing is starting material?

Which is :banghead::banghead::banghead: -worthy when TR, Gardy, Andy and Nick Nelson continue to insist that the Dunce is starting material.

Nick was all for removing Duensing from the rotation in 2011 because of his splits. I know this for a fact because several massive threads were dedicated to it over on BYTO.

What I find odd about Diamond's curveball is that he gets so little break on it. PITCHf/x says that his curve gets an average of no inches of vertical break (without gravity), which is atypical of curveballs (Texas Leaguers says the average curveball breaks about 6 inches downwards without gravity). If anything, his curveball has the break of a slider (1.7 inches up w/o gravity), which when combined with its velocity (about 81 MPH), it makes me believe that Diamond actually throws a slider instead of a curve.

Where has Nick insisted that Duensing is starting material?

You're not looking very hard.

Nick was all for removing Duensing from the rotation in 2011 because of his splits. I know this for a fact because several massive threads were dedicated to it over on BYTO.

What evidence prompted the change in heart in 2012?

You're not looking very hard.

The onus is on you to support your own statements.

What evidence prompted the change in heart in 2012?

It probably had something to do with having the 29th best rotation in baseball.

What evidence prompted the change in heart in 2012?

Is it a change of heart, or simply a gross misrepresentation of his position?

It probably had something to do with having the 29th best rotation in baseball.

OK, then not very thoroughly thought out then? (Given the alternatives I posted previously who still actually have a chance at some sort of success as a SP).

Is it a change of heart, or simply a gross misrepresentation of his position?

Or is it you, displaying your ignorance by not actually finding our public conversations on the matter?

The onus is on you to support your own statements.

The onus is on you to keep up with the conversation.

Okay, that's quite enough. The tone in this thread is turning for the worse.

Okay, that's quite enough. The tone in this thread is turning for the worse.

Thankyou.

I suppose I could just step in and settle this, since I don't need to "look" anywhere to identify my own viewpoints.

In spring of 2011, when the Twins named Duensing as a starter very early on, I criticized the decision and heavily advocated for placing him in the bullpen. See here (http://twinsfanatnicks.blogspot.com/2011/03/done-deal.html):


Unfortunately, for anyone looking past those categories, it's tough to see him sustaining the kind of success he had last year in a starting role. ... As a reliever, he would provide the Twins with an established commodity in a bullpen that lacks many. He'd be able to fully utilize his dominance against lefty swingers rather than facing starting lineups stacked with righties.

It shouldn't be difficult to see why I was open to giving him a shot this year. The rotation has been an absolute mess and Duensing has had more success as an MLB starter than most of the "alternatives" suggested by jokin will ever experience.

I suppose I could just step in and settle this, since I don't need to "look" anywhere to identify my own viewpoints.

In spring of 2011, when the Twins named Duensing as a starter very early on, I criticized the decision and heavily advocated for placing him in the bullpen. See here (http://twinsfanatnicks.blogspot.com/2011/03/done-deal.html):

Unfortunately, for anyone looking past those categories, it's tough to see him sustaining the kind of success he had last year in a starting role. ... As a reliever, he would provide the Twins with an established commodity in a bullpen that lacks many. He'd be able to fully utilize his dominance against lefty swingers rather than facing starting lineups stacked with righties.

It shouldn't be difficult to see why I was open to giving him a shot this year. The rotation has been an absolute mess and Duensing has had more success as an MLB starter than most of the "alternatives" suggested by jokin will ever experience.

You should have stuck to your guns, Nick.;) Duensing had his niche role filled perfectly. (cc this to Snepp:p)

You are walking out on a thin limb, though, by cavalierly suggesting that Duensing will end up as the best starter out of the 6 mentioned (Duensing + Vasquez, Hendriks, Hernandez, Hermsen, Hirschfield). The rotation is a mess, this is the perfect time to find out what else you have in SP pitching depth before you start making the hard financial decisions that might include locking up Carl Pavano-type money (or more) to someone as you construct a 2013 rotation in the offseason. Nobody saw what the Twins had in Diamond, I certainly don't remember your prediction, or mine, about him as an "alternative" (more importantly, the Twins, themselves!). I'd say now is the time to find out if there are cheaper and less risky alternatives to high-dollar acquisitions. There is absolutely nothing to lose by finding out more about what you don't know, then to learn the same information that you already knew.

You should have stuck to your guns, Nick.;) Duensing had his niche role filled perfectly. (cc this to Snepp:p)

You are walking out on a thin limb, though, by cavalierly suggesting that Duensing will end up as the best starter out of the 6 mentioned (Duensing + Vasquez, Hendriks, Hernandez, Hermsen, Hirschfield). The rotation is a mess, this is the perfect time to find out what else you have in SP pitching depth before you start making the hard financial decisions that might include locking up Carl Pavano-type money (or more) to someone as you construct a 2013 rotation in the offseason. Nobody saw what the Twins had in Diamond, I certainly don't remember your prediction, or mine, about him as an "alternative" (more importantly, the Twins, themselves!). I'd say now is the time to find out if there are cheaper and less risky alternatives to high-dollar acquisitions. There is absolutely nothing to lose by finding out more about what you don't know, then to learn the same information that you already knew.

I'd leave Hendriks off that list for now. I think it's pretty apparent that Cuellar is working on something specific with him in Rochester and as soon as they feel comfortable with his progress, he'll be with the ML club.

I'd leave Hendriks off that list for now. I think it's pretty apparent that Cuellar is working on something specific with him in Rochester and as soon as they feel comfortable with his progress, he'll be with the ML club.

I'd leave almost everyone off that list for now. Hermsen hasn't even pitched in Triple-A, while Hernandez and Hirschfeld (seriously? Hirschfeld?) have had zero success there. These aren't top-flight prospects that you simply throw directly into an MLB rotation. Just because you haven't seen a guy before doesn't mean he's better than what you have. Plus, with the exception of Hendriks and Hernandez, none of those players are on the 40-man roster.

When I suggested trying Duensing in the rotation, it was simply because he was readily available and has had success as an MLB starter in the past, and at the time the Twins were trotting out Swarzak and Blackburn. That doesn't mean I think he's a viable long-term option or that I'm "continuing to insist that he's starting material" – amusing statements coming from a person accusing others of being ignorant and not taking the time to track down and accurately recap past conversations.

Blinded by his half season ERA?
Nah, not blinded... I see he's figured it out.

it shouldn't be difficult to see why i was open to giving him a shot this year. The rotation has been an absolute mess and duensing has had more success as an mlb starter than most of the "alternatives" suggested by jokin will ever experience.

ohhhh snap!@##w$

You should have stuck to your guns, Nick.;) Duensing had his niche role filled perfectly. (cc this to Snepp:p)

As I said, you butchered his viewpoint to support your own and were unwilling to provide proof of your exaggerated claims because they didn't exist.

Scott Diamond's downward pitch slant makes hitters top a lot of balls, identical release point masks the pitch for a vital fraction of a second.

Another factor is the speed difference between his fastball and his curve. The fact that they look so alike coming out of his hand does more than create problems with pitch identification. It also creates a tendency to be early on his curve and late on his fastball, because the two aren't that far apart in speed. This should allow Diamond's infield and outfield to shade slightly to one side or the other, potentially gaining a vital step on a ball put in play.

One other thing that jumps out is his excellent grouping. It indicates that Diamond is spotting the ball with great precision, which implies that his style of pitching is sustainable so long as he's healthy, and I haven't seen any indication that his motion causes damage.

I'd love to see the pitch scatter chart on De Vries and Deduno. I bet De Vries has groupings in the corners, and Samuel Deduno's fastball looks like buck shot.

You should have stuck to your guns, Nick.;) Duensing had his niche role filled perfectly. (cc this to Snepp:p)

As I said, you butchered his viewpoint to support your own and were unwilling to provide proof of your exaggerated claims because they didn't exist.

You were asked nicely to cease and desist. Geez.

There were no exaggerated claims, there was no butchering of Nick's viewpoint, the debate regarding Dunce's role happened from the time Duensing was moved into the starting role, I questioned Nick's assertion that Dunce would be fine as a SP and asked Nick at the time to defend it. Feel free to check the dates when he became a SP and then search the TD archives. It isn't up to me to provide you footnotes, you are wasting everyone's time and providing nothing but white noise to this particular thread.

Great work as always Parker. Let's just all hope he can be consistent and keep this going for years to come.

I'd leave Hendriks off that list for now. I think it's pretty apparent that Cuellar is working on something specific with him in Rochester and as soon as they feel comfortable with his progress, he'll be with the ML club.

I'd leave almost everyone off that list for now. Hermsen hasn't even pitched in Triple-A, while Hernandez and Hirschfeld (seriously? Hirschfeld?) have had zero success there. These aren't top-flight prospects that you simply throw directly into an MLB rotation. Just because you haven't seen a guy before doesn't mean he's better than what you have. Plus, with the exception of Hendriks and Hernandez, none of those players are on the 40-man roster.

When I suggested trying Duensing in the rotation, it was simply because he was readily available and has had success as an MLB starter in the past, and at the time the Twins were trotting out Swarzak and Blackburn. That doesn't mean I think he's a viable long-term option or that I'm "continuing to insist that he's starting material" – amusing statements coming from a person accusing others of being ignorant and not taking the time to track down and accurately recap past conversations.





For you, not the "friend" you are defending, I will be happy to take the time to research, track down and get back to you with the specific quotes. Speaking of the use of accusatorial misquoting, if you aspire to professional writing, you need to discern the difference and context between "ignorance" and "ignorant". The word I used was ignorance and the use of "ignorance" on my part was in reference to the other poster's unawareness of a subject matter, not "ignorant" as a perjorative. Big difference.

I know a lot of times guys in your position (I'm not saying you have done it) like to be in print holding different positions on the same subject- with the ability to then link back to when what they wrote then shows how smart they are. Because you're better than that, that's why I'm surprised that you backed off from the correct position in this round. As stated, I didn't expect you to "know" that Diamond should have been in the rotation from the start, in that vein, I'm saying let's find out more about what we don't know, continuing what the Twins were already doing. Just sayin'.

Meanwhile, nothing has changed regarding the Dunce from what you wrote previously in 2011. He's demonstrated further in 2012 that he is perfect in a role as a lefty reliever. This is a lost season. It has to be a lost season when the Twins were forced to trot out Diamond, Walters, DeVries and Deduno. Were any one of these "top flight prospects that you simply throw into an MLB rotation"? Of course not. Nothing was lost by trotting these guys out and it's likely nothing will be lost by trotting out others (Hendriks is working on certain issues and his emotional fragility may or may not be a special case). There was no argument I proposed that they are "better" on a game-by-game basis, just that it generally makes perfect sense to start a guy for spot duty like Duensing- if you're in the playoff hunt or early in the season when things are unsettled- his move out of the bullpen was a "pick your poison" move as it was disruptive to a Twins area of some success- and did little-to-nothing at bolstering the SP situation- all the while wrecking what was a really nice season that Duensing was putting together. Here are his stats before beginning his SP duties in late June: 34.2 IP/WHIP 1.03/ERA 2.33/K-BB 22-8.

His total numbers since the change: 38 IP/WHIP 1.69/ERA 7.11/K-BB 17-8. I think it's entirely fair to say anyone on my list had a shot at matching or besting these numbers, with further experience and knowledge of personnel added to the equation.

Here are the entire season totals for the Twins RP staff cumulatively: OBA .246/WHIP 1.28/ERA 3.79/K-BB% 16.8. And here is the July stat set for the RPs: OBA .282/WHIP 1.54/ERA 4.75/K-BB% 15.5

Of course, the bullpen fall-down isn't entirely related to Duensing's absence, but the numbers tell a good part of the story.

To reiterate, the Twins outcome for this season has been settled for quite some time, the biggest accomplishment left for the Twins to achieve during the remainder of the year and going into the off-season, is finding and identifying guys in positions of need- a key component is starting next year's SP "cattle call" ASAP.

The 40-man roster argument holds little water, as well. By my count, the Twins have moved NINE guys onto the 40-man during the season. This includes 5 pitchers, including 3 of 4 mentioned above. They too, were all "readily available" as the Twins demonstrated, as are the guys I proposed. There is plenty of detritus that the Twins can Waive and/or DFA, without consequence, as demonstrated with every previous cut this year, they likely won't get claimed- or won't be missed- or won't be here next year anyway. (Tosoni, Gray, "seriously"?)

Holy crap, talk about a thread getting hijacked from the "I'm smarter than you are" crowd. The original analysis on Diamond was excellent, he has great deception and as long as he stays healthy there isn't much to indicate he won't continue to be successful.