Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Did Liam Hendriks show you enough??

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 greengoblinrulz

greengoblinrulz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 04:04 PM

Upon his final callup, numbers weren't earthshattering but he held his own fine.
8starts
47IP 49h 23er 4.40ERA 27k 16bb 7HRs (4 in 1 gm tho)

If you're of the belief like I am that Scot Baker is just a formality of bein re-signed after they dont pick up their option.....are you happy if you put Baker, Hendriks & Diamond into your rotation for 2013 with 2 spots to fill???

#2 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,666 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 04:20 PM

Yes. Liam will figure it out and be a fine starter. Diamond, Gibson, Hendriks and Baker should make this rotation light years better than this year. If the Twins add one legit starter and several low risk options they should feel good about the rotation going into the season IMO. I think Gibson might make the team out of ST and I wouldn't be surprised if Baker is up by May. I've been going back and forth about Gibson starting with the Twins, but I feel like they have little reason not to if he shows he is healthy this fall. Same with Baker. Once he shows he can throw 75 pitches there is no reason for him not to be with the Twins.

#3 J-Dog Dungan

J-Dog Dungan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 660 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 04:21 PM

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I don't know. I think he will have to be VERY convincing in Spring Training to get to go north with the team, especially if the Twins pick up a few SP options this offseason.

#4 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,798 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 04:25 PM

I think it's a mistake to pencil in Hendriks but he has the advantage going into 2013. My plan would be to sign a B-type FA (Marcum, Sanchez, Jackson, etc.), decline then sign Baker, slot in Diamond, and then try to pick up another Marquis-type and let him compete with Deduno, De Vries, Hendriks, et al for the final two spots.

That rotation, while not spectacular, shouldn't embarrass itself and later in the year, you can slot in Gibson as one of those five gets injured and/or fails.

#5 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,666 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 04:31 PM

I think it's a mistake to pencil in Hendriks but he has the advantage going into 2013. My plan would be to sign a B-type FA (Marcum, Sanchez, Jackson, etc.), decline then sign Baker, slot in Diamond, and then try to pick up another Marquis-type and let him compete with Deduno, De Vries, Hendriks, et al for the final two spots.

That rotation, while not spectacular, shouldn't embarrass itself and later in the year, you can slot in Gibson as one of those five gets injured and/or fails.

The team will go 5-20 in April and put them out of it before it even starts... again. Put the best team on the field in April and let them play. You will have a hard time convincing me that Hendriks isn't better than Deduno, De Vries, or any of the dumpster diving FA signees the Twins get.

#6 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,798 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 04:35 PM

I think it's a mistake to pencil in Hendriks but he has the advantage going into 2013. My plan would be to sign a B-type FA (Marcum, Sanchez, Jackson, etc.), decline then sign Baker, slot in Diamond, and then try to pick up another Marquis-type and let him compete with Deduno, De Vries, Hendriks, et al for the final two spots.

That rotation, while not spectacular, shouldn't embarrass itself and later in the year, you can slot in Gibson as one of those five gets injured and/or fails.

The team will go 5-20 in April and put them out of it before it even starts... again. Put the best team on the field in April and let them play. You will have a hard time convincing me that Hendriks isn't better than Deduno, De Vries, or any of the dumpster diving FA signees the Twins get.


I think he is as well... but I also think he needs to prove it next March before he is handed a spot in the rotation.

#7 Monkeypaws

Monkeypaws

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 677 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 04:36 PM

The guy needs to get away from being a nibble-nuts and trust his stuff.

Actually, today vs. Detroit, I thought that was the first time I've seen borderline pitches go his way, and what a huge difference that makes.

He is very close to being a decent MLB pitcher. He needs to establish the strike zone early, and get the benefit of calls as the game progresses.

Edited by Monkeypaws, 30 September 2012 - 04:44 PM.


#8 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,305 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 30 September 2012 - 04:36 PM

Upon his final callup, numbers weren't earthshattering but he held his own fine.
8starts
47IP 49h 23er 4.40ERA 27k 16bb 7HRs (4 in 1 gm tho)

If you're of the belief like I am that Scot Baker is just a formality of bein re-signed after they dont pick up their option.....are you happy if you put Baker, Hendriks & Diamond into your rotation for 2013 with 2 spots to fill???


Depends on:

a. how the trio does on ST
b. who the other 2 are. If they are like Pavano and Marquis, no go.... If they are legitimate number 1 and number 2 pitchers who would let Baker be a 3 and Diamond a 4, I would have no problem with who number 5 is.
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#9 greengoblinrulz

greengoblinrulz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 04:50 PM

Yes. Liam will figure it out and be a fine starter. Diamond, Gibson, Hendriks and Baker should make this rotation light years better than this year. If the Twins add one legit starter and several low risk options they should feel good about the rotation going into the season IMO. I think Gibson might make the team out of ST and I wouldn't be surprised if Baker is up by May. I've been going back and forth about Gibson starting with the Twins, but I feel like they have little reason not to if he shows he is healthy this fall. Same with Baker. Once he shows he can throw 75 pitches there is no reason for him not to be with the Twins.

Baker should be 100% by the time spring training starts....not on a rehab schedule, by all accounts from MN/Baker.
He wont be on an innings count for the season as a veteran....they dont get the Stasburg type babying. Adam Wainright got right back to 200IP this year and Ive said it numerous times that the last TJ guy MN had in the majors was Liriano & they let him get to 200 IP also.
Gibson WILL be on some type of count but it may be 170/180 as they plan to have him get 80 total innings this year combined.
Ive gone back & forth on whether to start the year with him or have him spend a month/two in Rochester. If they truly believe he's good for mid May, MN is then counting on one of their starters to flounder by then. This leads me to believe that MN will 'scholarship' Samuel Deduno for the 5th spot & wait for his control to kill him off. Hope not.

#10 jorgenswest

jorgenswest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,612 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 05:43 PM

If Baker will be 100% by opening day, how can they justify the risk of losing him? They must pick up his option.

#11 IdahoPilgrim

IdahoPilgrim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,424 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 06:50 PM

It depends on to what the original question (has he shown me enough?) refers. If the question is "Has he shown me enough to be pencilled into the rotation for next year," the answer is no. I don't put much stock in a handful of games late on which little if anything is riding. If the question is "Has he shown me enough to keep him in the organization and see if he can earn a spot in ST," then the answer is yes. That said I still think we need to sign two more proven starters (#3 level or above) before a spot for Hendriks should even be considered.

#12 denarded

denarded

    Member

  • Members
  • 43 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 07:10 PM

I say no to original post. I'm not fine with Baker/Hendricks/Diamond as a core of a staff unless you fill in 2 proven #2 starters (I'll leave said definition up for debate) I think pitching will be improved next year, but we can't begin next season with 2 #4 starters and 1 #3 starter (coming off injury) and feel good about our staff. BTW coming into this year MOST concern was with bullpen, not SP and look how that flip-flopped
Wikipedia is for suckers

#13 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,430 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 07:53 PM

Hendriks hasn't shown me anything. I have a feeling that he'll make the team out of spring training but that's because I don't see the Twins bringing in multiple starters and somebody has to pitch.

#14 3up3down

3up3down

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 08:00 PM

Did Hendricks show enough for what ? That he is a #5 starter , sure he did.....anything else , definitely no. He should go to spring training & compete with deduno, walters (who I believe is the best option of these) devries,Blackburn for the #5 spot. Hendricks stuff is a #5 pitcher in the AL & that's not gonna change.

#15 SpantheMan

SpantheMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 120 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 09:19 PM

If Baker will be 100% by opening day, how can they justify the risk of losing him? They must pick up his option.

They won't pick up his option, and they won't run a significant risk of losing him. That would be like saying, "If Capps is healthy, how can they not pick up is option". Nobody will spend more than 8 mil On an injury prone #3 starter coming back from TJ

#16 stringer bell

stringer bell

    Confirmed Hacker

  • Twins News Team
  • 4,066 posts
  • LocationZumbrota MN

Posted 01 October 2012 - 08:28 AM

Hendriks looked good yesterday. That doesn't guarantee him a spot next year, but I'm sure he'll be considered. As a couple have said, the Twins need to add two starters--I would say one thru trade and one thru free angency. We have seen that usually a starting staff goes to about 8-10 pitchers and with the unproveness of some of the Twins options, they should go at least that deep.

#17 Dantes929

Dantes929

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 01:05 PM

I say no to original post. I'm not fine with Baker/Hendricks/Diamond as a core of a staff unless you fill in 2 proven #2 starters (I'll leave said definition up for debate) I think pitching will be improved next year, but we can't begin next season with 2 #4 starters and 1 #3 starter (coming off injury) and feel good about our staff. BTW coming into this year MOST concern was with bullpen, not SP and look how that flip-flopped

. Fans perceptions are all out of whack. The range of ERA's for the best 30 starters with 120 innings is 1.57 by Medlan and end with Jarrod Parker at 3.44. Scott Diamond ranks as a very high #2 with the season he has had. Baker with his 2011 stats would rank as a solid #1 but should probably be considered an average #2. Most people think an ERA has to be well below 3 to be a #1. In 2012 that means only 4 pitchers in the american league would qualify. Good luck getting Verlander, Price, Weaver or Hernandez to the guy that says the Twins need to get a #1 and #2. If there was a factory that produced starters that were guaranteed to have a 4.00 -4.3 ERA, no more and no less, most teams would order 3 of them immediately. Rely on Baker and Diamond to do better than that, Hendriks and Gibson to fall somewhere in there and get another guy that is probably going to fall in that range as well and use all the other guys as backup and relief. So in summary I guess we already have 2 #2 guys in Baker and Diamond since the definition was up for interpretation and hopefully at least a #3 guy in Gibson. Do not overlook the value of having good #4 and #5 guys. A solid 5 ERA from your bottom two guys isn't all that bad. Most of the season we only had one guy in our top 5 that was below 6. That explains why we were 17 game under .500 after our first 47 games. Its not that we had a bunch of #4 and 5 starters. Its that we had a bunch of guys that weren't even that. I don't know who to target. When Jamie Shield as over 4 ERA I thought he would be a good value. Now, I have no idea. A # 1 and #2 would be great but you might as well just ask for 5 #1's.

#18 DAM DC Twins Fans

DAM DC Twins Fans

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 490 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 02:22 PM

Hendriks looked good yesterday. That doesn't guarantee him a spot next year, but I'm sure he'll be considered. As a couple have said, the Twins need to add two starters--I would say one thru trade and one thru free angency. We have seen that usually a starting staff goes to about 8-10 pitchers and with the unproveness of some of the Twins options, they should go at least that deep.


I agree--I doubt they will get a number one thru either trade or free agency--but maybe a second number 2 to go with Diamond. Then you open up the competition in ST--DeVries, Deduno, Baker (if healthy), Blackburn (since he is under contract), Hendricks, Walters--top 3 make it. Gibson comes up around June 1 (if healthy) to take the place of whomever sucks the most. Hopefully, out of all this we get 3 decent starters...

#19 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 02:33 PM

I think Hendriks has steadily shown he the mettle and stuff to be effective for the Twins, 1,2,3,4,5....who cares, he'll win some games next year and keep them in a bunch of others. The Seattle and the Detroit games combined with his performance in Rochester plus the fact he's 23 is enough. I saw many examples of him starting to get it, last night was probably the best, even above the Seattle game considering the lineup and the fact Detroit actually had something to play for.

#20 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,305 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 01 October 2012 - 04:49 PM

[quote name='Dantes929'][quote name='denarded'] The range of ERA's for the best 30 starters with 120 innings is 1.57 by Medlan and end with Jarrod Parker at 3.44. Scott Diamond ranks as a very high #2 with the season he has had. Baker with his 2011 stats would rank as a solid #1 but should probably be considered an average #2. Most people think an ERA has to be well below 3 to be a #1. In 2012 that means only 4 pitchers in the american league would qualify. [/QUOTE]

Some people think that ERA is not a good measurement of performance (along with things like W-L record, "quality" starts etc...)
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#21 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 9,523 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:52 PM

He hasn't shown me enough yet. I'd like to see him pitch more so he can.

#22 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,013 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 07:02 PM

Hendricks has been brutal save for two starts this season. Even in this putrid rotation he is not one of the top five pitchers at this point.

#23 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,666 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 07:45 PM

Hendricks has been brutal save for two starts this season. Even in this putrid rotation he is not one of the top five pitchers at this point.

Racist

#24 gil4

gil4

    Irrational Optimist

  • Members
  • 630 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:56 PM

Some people think that ERA is not a good measurement of performance...



Really? Who?

I can understand someone saying that it is an imprecise measure and that there are better available, but it still is a good indicator of overall performance, especially for starting pitchers.

Now W-L is another story...

#25 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 2,988 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 02 October 2012 - 07:23 AM

If we are talking about next year then no ERA is not a good predictor compared to FIP, xFIP or the best, SIERA.

#26 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,522 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:05 PM

If we are talking about next year then no ERA is not a good predictor compared to FIP, xFIP or the best, SIERA.


If you're talking about next year then none of those are good predictors because they're not predictive tools. They all are measurements of what has already happened and tell you nothing about what is to come. It is up to each individual to meld various inputs of past data and come to a reasonable prediction of future results. As such ERA is just as viable a tool as any others. There are no crystal balls.

#27 3up3down

3up3down

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 07:25 PM

Twinsnorth, I see it just the opposite, I think Hendricks make up(mettle) is not good at all, you can find a lot of the interviews on the web and you see Hendricks happy & carrinig on about how good he pitched & how good it was to shut out a line up like the tigers, while it is good & he should be pleased with his outing , that's not the way to act , your team just lost another game you started, your team has lost over 90 games , it's no time to be laughing in the clubhouse or talking about how good you pitched. He just doesn't get it yet...on the other hand you have a guy like Walters who kills his numbers by trying to pitch hurt, it was reported he was hurting after his complete game,but he started 3 more after that, then when he came back & pitched bad he took it all on himself, even after his last start where he pitched pretty well he was very unsatisfied because his team lost, that's the type guy I want in the clubhouse, those types will make the team better eventually. Just my opinion..

#28 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,666 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:04 PM

Twinsnorth, I see it just the opposite, I think Hendricks make up(mettle) is not good at all, you can find a lot of the interviews on the web and you see Hendricks happy & carrinig on about how good he pitched & how good it was to shut out a line up like the tigers, while it is good & he should be pleased with his outing , that's not the way to act , your team just lost another game you started, your team has lost over 90 games , it's no time to be laughing in the clubhouse or talking about how good you pitched. He just doesn't get it yet...on the other hand you have a guy like Walters who kills his numbers by trying to pitch hurt, it was reported he was hurting after his complete game,but he started 3 more after that, then when he came back & pitched bad he took it all on himself, even after his last start where he pitched pretty well he was very unsatisfied because his team lost, that's the type guy I want in the clubhouse, those types will make the team better eventually. Just my opinion..


At 23 Walters split time between AA and AAA. He had a 4.5 ERA in 158 IP 70BB 156SO 1.44 WHIP. Hendriks posted 2.2 ERA in 106 IP 28BB 82SO .978 WHIP in AAA after starting the season with the Twins. Walters would have looked promising 5 years ago when he reached AA at 22 and put up some decent numbers. After that season, he was too hittable, and it didn't help he walked a good amount of people. This isn't debatable. Walters doesn't deserve a roster spot on an MLB team. He is a filler in case someone goes down with an injury. That is his role. The one thing you left out is the fact Hendriks has documented talent while Walters has had injuries and terrible results. Lets not make this argument about how a player should or shouldn't act because you have no idea what goes on. I provided clear examples of why Hendriks is a much better option than Walters simply because you offered him up. What more does Hendriks have to do in the minors to be "ready?" He is young and needs to learn to pitch in the big leagues. That's it. At some point in the next few years we will know what kind of pitcher he is going to be by the results and adjustments he makes. That is how player development works.
Do or do not. There is no try.

#29 3up3down

3up3down

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:33 PM

I never said Walters deserved a roster spot on a MLB team, but you think Hendricks deserves one, c'mon...you bring up Walters #s and injuries, this is the 1st time he has ever missed a start in his carreer and put Hendricks in the PCL & let's revisit his stats..Walters was never given a opportunity with the cardinals , if Hendricks was in the cards org with Larussa as his mgr there isn't a doubt in my mind he would not be on the 40 man right now, he should be thankful he's a twin...some of these guys really got ther first real opportunity this year..some did ok , some not so good & Walters unfortunately got injured. I just said after watching all of them this year of the guys that I think might compete for the #5 spot I liked Walters.

#30 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:34 PM

Twinsnorth, I see it just the opposite, I think Hendricks make up(mettle) is not good at all, you can find a lot of the interviews on the web and you see Hendricks happy & carrinig on about how good he pitched & how good it was to shut out a line up like the tigers, while it is good & he should be pleased with his outing , that's not the way to act , your team just lost another game you started, your team has lost over 90 games , it's no time to be laughing in the clubhouse or talking about how good you pitched. He just doesn't get it yet...on the other hand you have a guy like Walters who kills his numbers by trying to pitch hurt, it was reported he was hurting after his complete game,but he started 3 more after that, then when he came back & pitched bad he took it all on himself, even after his last start where he pitched pretty well he was very unsatisfied because his team lost, that's the type guy I want in the clubhouse, those types will make the team better eventually. Just my opinion..


Just because Hendriks felt good about how he pitched (which he deserved to), doesn't mean he was happy his team lost. Just because you act like a sour puss and walk around with a pissy look on your face does not mean you're any more a team player and has nothing to do with how good a player you are. That's the same kind of thinking everyone uses to say Joe Mauer isn't a leader, because he's not stalking up and down the dugout shouting his head off or throwing bats or whatever it is "winners" do. Tim Keown pretty much proved what a bunch of bunk that is.

Hendriks still has lots to work on, but again, he's 23, has a solid minor league track record and has shown signs of being able to execute and string together some solid innings. Once he starts to figure what he can get away with and what he can't to big league hitters I think he'll be alright.