Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The Store

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Kyle Gibson's Innings Limit

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,196 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:06 PM

I keep reading various places that Kyle Gibson will be on a 130 inning limit in 2013. I asked this on Twitter, but I'm going to ask it here too. Can anyone show me an article (or a link to an interview) with a quote from Kyle Gibson, Terry Ryan or Rob Antony that says that Kyle Gibson will be limited to 130 innings?

I'm not saying it hasn't happened. Maybe someone can find one. I've just never seen it. Yesterday, Gibson was on Reusse and Mackey and in the interview, he basically said that all he's been told by TR and Gardy was that they weren't going to baby him, for him to just pitch and work, and throughout the season they'll evaluate it.

So, I'm curious where the 130 inning limit that we keep reading comes from.

Someone, prove me wrong...

#2 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,156 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:08 PM

I want to say it was Terry Ryan. I saw it somewhere on this site, I thought. I don't know if it was 130. I thought it might have been 140-150. And honestly, given how things are going, he absolutely should be limited to 150ish.

#3 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,259 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:09 PM

I've never given a number....so I hope that isn't aimed at me. Also, I think they have not stated one way or the other that he is on a limit, not that I can recall anyway. Given their general approach, I just assume he is on some kind of limit. If someone can prove you wrong, I'd be impressed.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#4 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,196 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:10 PM

I would 100% agree that there should be a limit somewhere, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear them say that there will be a limit. But I guess I've never really heard anyone come out and say what that limit is.

#5 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:10 PM

Three Twins postgame thoughts from LEN3: Homestand, Hernandez, Gibson | StarTribune.com

Gibson pushing forward despite innings limit | twinsbaseball.com: News

#6 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,156 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:12 PM

TP beat me to it. 130-140 innings. I was optimistic at 150.

#7 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,156 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:15 PM

The Bollinger article mentions that limit as an expectation. He also mentions that he "could" start out slowly in AAA. Yes, he could have. And damn it, my crazy idea was to go very slow (he would be at about 40 innings now) and to have Andrew Albers be his personal reliever. THE GREAT Andrew Albers, by the way!

#8 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,196 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:15 PM

I've never given a number....so I hope that isn't aimed at me. Also, I think they have not stated one way or the other that he is on a limit, not that I can recall anyway. Given their general approach, I just assume he is on some kind of limit. If someone can prove you wrong, I'd be impressed.


Not aimed at you at all. I just have heard that number spouted a lot in various places and I'm not sure where it comes from.

Liriano's first full year back after his Tommy John surgery (2008), he threw 123.1 innings in the minors and 76.0 innings with the Twins. That's 199.1 innings in his first season back. That's part of why I wonder where 130 came from. Not saying Gibson should come close to 200 innings. I'd put the number around 160 (which is, I think, where the Nationals put Strasburg last year).

Also, they now can track how many pitches someone throws too. Gibson threw 93 pitches in 9 innings in his last start. Yes, it eats more innings from his "limit" than if he throws 114 in 5.2 innings. Maybe it should be based on pitches instead.

#9 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,259 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:20 PM

I'm with Seth, I don't recall a Twins' official giving us a number, I'm not sure I recall one even mentioning there being a limit. It seems like speculation to me.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#10 Brad Swanson

Brad Swanson

    Señior Member

  • Members
  • 675 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:23 PM

Not aimed at you at all. I just have heard that number spouted a lot in various places and I'm not sure where it comes from.

Liriano's first full year back after his Tommy John surgery (2008), he threw 123.1 innings in the minors and 76.0 innings with the Twins. That's 199.1 innings in his first season back. That's part of why I wonder where 130 came from. Not saying Gibson should come close to 200 innings. I'd put the number around 160 (which is, I think, where the Nationals put Strasburg last year).

Also, they now can track how many pitches someone throws too. Gibson threw 93 pitches in 9 innings in his last start. Yes, it eats more innings from his "limit" than if he throws 114 in 5.2 innings. Maybe it should be based on pitches instead.


If I am remembering accurately, I believe Kris Medlen's 2012 was the desired model for Gibson's 2013. Although, that did not happen (starting in relief then moving to the rotation). Medlen ended 2012 with 151 innings between AAA and MLB.

"Let's get after it." ~ Someone on the Twins, probably.
Kevin Slowey was Framed!


#11 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,196 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:27 PM

People have sent me links to articles where someone speculates 130 innings, but the only quotes from Terry RYan have said, 'there will be a limit, but not a hard limit.' I read that (along with Gibson's comments) as we're going to play it by ear.

The key to that is Gibson being completely honest about how he and his arm feel when it gets to August.

#12 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,259 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:30 PM

So, there is a limit? bummer for this year.....I recall that Seth.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#13 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:44 PM

There were similar questions last year about Strasburg and an innings limit -- a lot of people said, there isn't a 160 IP limit, there's no direct quotes from the Nationals about that, they will play it by ear... and then they shut him down at 160.

I think teams and GMs just don't like to disclose this info, for whatever reason, so you're not going to find that form of evidence. But that doesn't mean that hard innings limits aren't there.

It will be interesting to see where Gibson ends up. 160 like Strasburg seems realistic. I think a lot has changed even in the few years since Liriano's surgery -- I doubt they let Gibson keep going beyond 160 this year, regardless of how he feels.

#14 jharaldson

jharaldson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 250 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:45 PM

Mackey states in this article "Ryan said the Twins will likely limit Gibson's innings to somewhere between 130 and 140 in 2013".

Mackey: How does a 'healthy' Kyle Gibson fit into Twins' 2013 plans? | 1500 ESPN Twin Cities ? Minnesota Sports News & Opinion (Twins, Vikings, Wolves, Wild, Gophers) | Sportswire: Minnesota Twins

#15 joeboo_22

joeboo_22

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 173 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:56 PM

The 130-140 Inning limit I've never heard from Terry Ryan. But I do remember Terry Ryan saying last year that they were sending him to the Arizona Fall League to extend him because they were only going to increase his innings by a certain % and that % was in that 130 range.

#16 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,156 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 01:02 PM

A problem with this is if they keep it at 130, isn't about 165 the "proper" percentage increase for next season? That's why I was hoping for 150ish, to get that closer to 200.

#17 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,196 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 01:45 PM

Mackey states in this article "Ryan said the Twins will likely limit Gibson's innings to somewhere between 130 and 140 in 2013".

Mackey: How does a 'healthy' Kyle Gibson fit into Twins' 2013 plans? | 1500 ESPN Twin Cities ? Minnesota Sports News & Opinion (Twins, Vikings, Wolves, Wild, Gophers) | Sportswire: Minnesota Twins



That would be the quote we're looking for. Even though it's not in quotes, mackey likely talked to him on air or something to get those numbers.

#18 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,259 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 01:54 PM

So, 130.....that's why I wanted Gibson up before Deduno.....so he's not burning innings in AAA. He'll have around 57 after his next start.....leaving only 73 for the majors? *

*edited out the rest for my dodo head part....

Edited by mike wants wins, 21 May 2013 - 01:58 PM.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#19 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,930 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 02:03 PM

That would be the quote we're looking for. Even though it's not in quotes, mackey likely talked to him on air or something to get those numbers.


So....as Gibson will be approaching 60 IP in Roc. in his next start this weekend....and who knows how many more starts left pitching for the Wings....that only leaves around 10 or so available major league starts for Gibson. He'll be done by mid-August.

#20 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,930 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 02:04 PM

So, 130.....that's why I wanted Gibson up before Deduno.....so he's not burning innings in AAA. He'll have around 57 after his next start.....leaving only 73 for the majors? *

*edited out the rest for my dodo head part....


Sorry for stepping on your post, unrefreshed thread on my part...

#21 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,259 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 02:08 PM

No issue....and my 73 assumes he comes up in a week.....

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#22 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,546 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 21 May 2013 - 03:41 PM

So, 130.....that's why I wanted Gibson up before Deduno.....so he's not burning innings in AAA. He'll have around 57 after his next start.....leaving only 73 for the majors? *

*edited out the rest for my dodo head part....


Yes, this is why it should have been Gibson. I still think there is a little flexibility on the back end, but there will be no competitive reason to push it.
Papers...business papers.

#23 Twins Twerp

Twins Twerp

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 807 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:49 PM

I haven't seen this anywhere, but I was thinking to myself when I saw Deduno would make the start: "Is this a financial move by the Twins?" This thought made me hate myself but here is why I think this. Not for service time or any of that BS. Deduno's start will be made on the road if I am not mistaken. Could the Twins brass be thinking: "Gibson is a popular prospect whom Twins nation knows a lot about, should we wait until a home game to call him up?" Of course not every (or 98%) of Twins fans are as versed in the Farm system as we (td.com) are, but Gibby is popular. He has a spot on "Spotlight, The Next Generation" or whatever they call it. They frequently talk about him in the booth, both on radio and Television. He could bring in more ticket sales for the first start of "GIBBY's" career. Just a thought, or am I reading too many TD articles and refreshing BA.com too often?

#24 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,930 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:56 PM

I haven't seen this anywhere, but I was thinking to myself when I saw Deduno would make the start: "Is this a financial move by the Twins?" This thought made me hate myself but here is why I think this. Not for service time or any of that BS. Deduno's start will be made on the road if I am not mistaken. Could the Twins brass be thinking: "Gibson is a popular prospect whom Twins nation knows a lot about, should we wait until a home game to call him up?" Of course not every (or 98%) of Twins fans are as versed in the Farm system as we (td.com) are, but Gibby is popular. He has a spot on "Spotlight, The Next Generation" or whatever they call it. They frequently talk about him in the booth, both on radio and Television. He could bring in more ticket sales for the first start of "GIBBY's" career. Just a thought, or am I reading too many TD articles and refreshing BA.com too often?


Interesting perspectives. But I would argue that Deduno generates some buzz among Twins fans, too. If it was really a financial move, the logical call-up would have been PJ Walters, who is coming off of a very good start on Saturday, and appears to be more than ready compared with the other options, besides Gibson, of course (actually their numbers are virtually identical, with only Gibson's FIP of 2.74 vs Walters 3.09 being slightly better).
Funny that Walters is not more in the call-up conversation...

#25 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,169 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 11:31 PM

Part of me wonders if they meant that they were limiting him to 130 innings in the majors. If that's the case, they could call him up in the near future and hit that mark, putting his season total around 180-190. That seems not unreasonable considering how far out he is from the surgery. Seth makes a good point in stating that Liriano threw 199 innings his first year back from TJ.

I've always felt that a 130-inning total cap was absurdly conservative, so this would be a logical explanation to me.

It's worth noting that in the GM Handbook interview, Terry Ryan said of Gibson, "We aren't going to be looking for 170 or 180 innings, no. He's not going to be ready for that type of load." Moments later, he said "I don't think you'll ever see him throw more than 100 pitches."

Gibson threw 116 pitches in his first shutout earlier this month. So... we'll see.

#26 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,196 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:08 AM

Part of me wonders if they meant that they were limiting him to 130 innings in the majors. If that's the case, they could call him up in the near future and hit that mark, putting his season total around 180-190. That seems not unreasonable considering how far out he is from the surgery. Seth makes a good point in stating that Liriano threw 199 innings his first year back from TJ.

I've always felt that a 130-inning total cap was absurdly conservative, so this would be a logical explanation to me.

It's worth noting that in the GM Handbook interview, Terry Ryan said of Gibson, "We aren't going to be looking for 170 or 180 innings, no. He's not going to be ready for that type of load." Moments later, he said "I don't think you'll ever see him throw more than 100 pitches."

Gibson threw 116 pitches in his first shutout earlier this month. So... we'll see.


I should point out that I think 199 innings for Liriano was crazy, and there was a different GM, but a lot of the same people. I would like to see Gibson get to 160 if he's feeling right. I wouldn't push it, but 130 is crazy low.

#27 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,259 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:11 AM

As always, I agree with Seth....

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#28 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,521 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:15 AM

That would be the quote we're looking for. Even though it's not in quotes, mackey likely talked to him on air or something to get those numbers.


Why does Phil Mackey look like a Russian mafia boss who has been up for about 4 days straight in that profile pic? Don't be afraid to crack a smile Phil!

#29 fairweather

fairweather

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 253 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:21 AM

The number of innings for Gibby really isn't important because the Twins won't be a playoff contender this year. What is important is that he has success when he finally gets his feet wet. The Twins would be wise to keep him at AAA until he finds consistency. I know he throws relatively hard but he's not Deduno. Gibson will need to be able to consistently locate his fastball to have success in the show. Once he get's his mechanics figured out he has a real good chance to be an above average MLB starter.

#30 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 3,330 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:30 AM

Can't pull a pitcher from a shutout!

...unless you're me <----- in which case feel free to pull me from a no-no in the 7th