Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Twins pitching piece to share

  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#101 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 27,296 posts

Posted 05 November 2018 - 07:22 PM

 

In regards to reliever IP, I am happy someone thinks that Molitor didn't overuse Hildenberger and Taylor

 

So if they are not good enough to be a SP how on earth are they good enough to be stacked, which is essentially being a starter. Expecting a pitcher to go twice through the orderis not relieving. It would be the skill set of a starter,

 

As if I said anything of the sort about those two, who were not used in this manner, nor prepared to do so. No idea how you got there at all, frankly.

 

I'd rather see if 2 times through the order, and throwing less innings so maybe they throw harder (and different pitch mix) works, than throw them out and hope for 6 innings.......because that literally does not work....as we can see in the SP numbers on Fangraphs and just by watching the Twins. There are not enough SPs on the planet to fill all the teams......so why try to use people that way?

I remain hopeful on Buxton and Sano.....but I'd not bet the franchise on them.


#102 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Members
  • 3,864 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 05 November 2018 - 08:44 PM

In regards to reliever IP, I am happy someone thinks that Molitor didn't overuse Hildenberger and Taylor

So if they are not good enough to be a SP how on earth are they good enough to be stacked, which is essentially being a starter. Expecting a pitcher to go twice through the order is not relieving. It would be the skill set of a starter,

Hildenberger wasn’t prepared/conditioned to throw 100 innings.

How many Quad-A type starters have rolled through the Twins rotation over the last decade that might have been perfectly serviceable or maybe even good stackers? 4-5 per season at least, that we’ve all gone “Geez why do they keep trotting Littell (or insert other name here) out there?”

Those guys are starting 20 or more per season no matter what. Most every team uses 10+ starters per season. Maximize what you can get from your depth.

Edited by Sconnie, 05 November 2018 - 08:48 PM.

  • Mike Sixel likes this

#103 Kelly Vance

Kelly Vance

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 467 posts

Posted 05 November 2018 - 11:49 PM

 

It looked broke to me.

How does anything ever improve without experimentation and those brave enough to try new things?

 Baseball has been around since the 1880s or something. If this was a real idea, it woulda been a change in the game by 1900. I say its a dumb gimmick


#104 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,600 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 05:32 AM

I agree! Dead ball era 4eva!
  • USAFChief likes this

#105 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,893 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 06:12 AM

Baseball has been around since the 1880s or something. If this was a real idea, it woulda been a change in the game by 1900. I say its a dumb gimmick


The over the fence home run says hello.
  • Carole Keller and USAFChief like this

#106 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,813 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 06 November 2018 - 07:30 AM

 

 Baseball has been around since the 1880s or something. If this was a real idea, it woulda been a change in the game by 1900. I say its a dumb gimmick

 

Back in the 2000's, Analytics started to become prominent in the game of baseball and has grown to the point where every single team has a department solely devoted to analysis. 

 

While the use of analytics was in it's infancy there were people saying "baseball has been around since the 1880's" and it is comments like these that delay the arrival of almost every new thing in life because it take real courage to implement something new in the face of these type of comments from people with power and people without power a like.  

 

Baseball didn't snap it's fingers and change into full saber metric mode overnight. There was a guy who was working on it in the 50's and didn't real understand the implications. Bill James started publishing in the 70's and was mostly ignored by baseball until a team has success with it. Then once you see a team have success with it... it kind of trickles across the landscape for years (even decades) followed by a flood and then a trickle of the last remaining stragglers. The Twins were in the last remaining straggler group BTW. 

 

The opener idea was just introduced... there will be a trickle and until then... those trying to implement are going to have to endure the "Baseball has been around since the 1880's" comments just like... always. 

A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

 

President of the "Baseball Player Positional Flexibility" Club 

Founded 4-23-16 

 

Strike Zone Automation Advocate


#107 Number3

Number3

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 184 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 08:48 AM

I have always thought that the job of Starting Pitcher in the major leagues has become the most over paid fluff jobs in all of pro sports. Maybe not for the relative few greats, but for the many whose job it is to simply give the team innings. Even if they only last 2 or 3 innings they get the next 4 days off and go into their crazy routines. Its crazy to have 5 players on the roster who are only available every 5 games each. Anything to change that would be good but it still depends on execution, not some system. The teams with the best talent will still have the best staffs and managers will be hard pressed to not over use their best pitchers regardless of what name they give their "system" stacking, fracking or quacking.


#108 Kelly Vance

Kelly Vance

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 467 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 08:58 PM

 

Back in the 2000's, Analytics started to become prominent in the game of baseball and has grown to the point where every single team has a department solely devoted to analysis. 

 

While the use of analytics was in it's infancy there were people saying "baseball has been around since the 1880's" and it is comments like these that delay the arrival of almost every new thing in life because it take real courage to implement something new in the face of these type of comments from people with power and people without power a like.  

 

Baseball didn't snap it's fingers and change into full saber metric mode overnight. There was a guy who was working on it in the 50's and didn't real understand the implications. Bill James started publishing in the 70's and was mostly ignored by baseball until a team has success with it. Then once you see a team have success with it... it kind of trickles across the landscape for years (even decades) followed by a flood and then a trickle of the last remaining stragglers. The Twins were in the last remaining straggler group BTW. 

 

The opener idea was just introduced... there will be a trickle and until then... those trying to implement are going to have to endure the "Baseball has been around since the 1880's" comments just like... always. 

Not to be condescending or anything.... analytics have not improved the game one bit. It has given baseball nerds stuff to argue about, mainly. And just because something is a new fad, doesn't mean it is a good idea. Think bell bottom jeans. 

 

You still have to field a team of guys who can throw, hit and field. And analysis means nothing in that blink of an eye when you have to hit a 97 mph four seamer. 

 

Analysis tells you that the shift is employed a lot. But an intelligent analysis will also tell you that you can beat the shift every time by hitting it the other way, dropping a bunt etc. But if you do stats against a stubborn cuss that won't adapt (Think Ted Williams... but he was a special case) the success of the shift gets exaggerated. Against a bunch of guys who know how to handle a bat, the shift should fail more than it succeeds. So analytics that tell you to employ the shift should change back once guys consistently try to beat it. 

 

I have used the opener idea. I think I won two championship games (middle school) doing it. But it was a playoff game and there is no tomorrow.  Fresh arms can go 3 innings easy. I see it wearing down over a long season.  

 

I also think it slaps your starters in the face and will end the incentive contract. Openers will never get a win. Bummer man. The guy who comes in after the first three innings can get the win, even if the opener did as much to earn the win.

 

Being old school don't make you wrong. 


#109 IndianaTwin

IndianaTwin

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 681 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 09:38 PM

 

...When it is pointed out that Odorizi, or any other pitcher had such a bad OPS 3 time through the order keep in mind that they are facing the heart of the order for the third time. These are the people with a higher OPS to begin with. While .790may be high the average ops in the power section of a lineupought to be somewhere near that.Small sample size comes into play, also. Only 20 some of Odorizzi's innings were against third time through the order....

 

Excellent point. He faced 143 batters as the third time through the order. It would be interesting to see the same 143 batters in their first at bats and their second at bats. 

 

That 143 plate appearances is about 20 percent of his batters, however, so it's not exactly a SSS.


#110 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,813 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 06 November 2018 - 10:36 PM

 

Not to be condescending or anything.... analytics have not improved the game one bit. It has given baseball nerds stuff to argue about, mainly. And just because something is a new fad, doesn't mean it is a good idea. Think bell bottom jeans. 

 

You still have to field a team of guys who can throw, hit and field. And analysis means nothing in that blink of an eye when you have to hit a 97 mph four seamer. 

 

Analysis tells you that the shift is employed a lot. But an intelligent analysis will also tell you that you can beat the shift every time by hitting it the other way, dropping a bunt etc. But if you do stats against a stubborn cuss that won't adapt (Think Ted Williams... but he was a special case) the success of the shift gets exaggerated. Against a bunch of guys who know how to handle a bat, the shift should fail more than it succeeds. So analytics that tell you to employ the shift should change back once guys consistently try to beat it. 

 

I have used the opener idea. I think I won two championship games (middle school) doing it. But it was a playoff game and there is no tomorrow.  Fresh arms can go 3 innings easy. I see it wearing down over a long season.  

 

I also think it slaps your starters in the face and will end the incentive contract. Openers will never get a win. Bummer man. The guy who comes in after the first three innings can get the win, even if the opener did as much to earn the win.

 

Being old school don't make you wrong. 

 

And not all fads are fads. 

 

LOL... But I loved the Bell Bottom Reference. Got me thinking about a Eric Clapton song that I'd hadn't thought about in years. And it was always one of my favorite songs ever. 

 

I thank you for that. 

 

 

 

A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

 

President of the "Baseball Player Positional Flexibility" Club 

Founded 4-23-16 

 

Strike Zone Automation Advocate


#111 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,801 posts

Posted 07 November 2018 - 10:44 AM

 

Only a handful of relievers ever maintain a 60 plus IP, I do not think it is feasible to have 6 be able to do it.Now if you want relievers to throw with less effort to increase innings you would expect a decrease in effectiveness. Maybe that is not a good idea

 

When it is pointed out that Odorizi, or any other pitcher had such a bad OPS 3 time through the order keep in mind that they are facing the heart of the order for the third time. These are the people with a higher OPS to begin with. While .790may be high the average ops in the power section of a lineupought to be somewhere near that.Small sample size comes into play, also. Only 20 some of Odorizzi's innings were against third time through the order.

 

Stacking means to me like a platoon. Neither pitcher is good enough so therefore you need a platoon. Two people for one position means you need to have better pitchers in the bullpen because your long guy is attached to another pitcher.

 

Opener is far different than stacked. If it prevents hitters who do better seeing a pitcher for the third time from being able to do so, great.A starter facing 24 batters is better than one facing 18 

Numbers and innings. When you look through history you can see why stacking would not be a long term answer, nor would bullpening

 

Odorizzi's OPS allowed 3rd time through is something like 1.150, and that's for every player facing them the third time, not just the "heart of the order". It's not the third inning...it's the third time facing each batter in the lineup.

Co-Editor at CallToThePen.com, covering Twins, Braves, minor leagues, and all other baseball!