Article: Purchasing A Rotation, And What It Means

[bird]

Can anyone point to a study that reveals the average number of starts that are lost due to injury and replacement from the rotation a team installs to begin a season? 

 

Any guesses? 40? 50?

 

And how many starters on average does a MLB team use during a given season?

 

7? 8?

Edited December 15, 2014 by birdwatcher

[Mike Sixel]

I think I read that the "majority" of teams use 8 during a year, but not sure what that means, number of starts wise. Nor do I know if that is indicative of how well a team does.....like, if you have 10, is that worse than having 6?

[TheLeviathan]

I can't speak for others but....while I don't think they will end up 5th again, I think it is reasonable to think top 10 or so.  There are several regression candidates but there are others who will likely do better next year.... 

 

The list of regression vs. progression isn't favorable:

 

Regression Worse: Suzuki (significant), Santana (Possibly crazy amount here), Vargas, Escobar

 

Regression Better: Arcia, Mauer

 

I think we're a bottom half offense next year, with a mediocre bullpen, and an improved rotation.  That, however, is not the ingredients to contend.  And even if Buxton and Sano come up we should temper how quickly we declare them the missing ingredients of a top ten offense.  Rookies struggle the majority of the time and to expect differently is a bit naive.  That isn't to write off the possibility, but it seems kind of silly to always talk of forecasting in the most pollyanna sort of way.

[TheLeviathan]

It's all about options. The Twins will go into 2015 with multiple scenarios for fielding a competitive rotation.   

 

 

I want to quibble a bit with this.  All of us who are Twins fans should hesitate to embrace this just because the organization has shown a strong tendency to not view these as true options.  There are default settings that prevent guys like May and Meyer from getting an equal shot at a spot.  It reminds me of an NFL coach telling the press there is a "Position Battle" at QB when everyone with a functioning brain stem knows who the starter is.  

 

The Twins have to prove to me that they will truly opt for the young kid pitching his butt off over the higher paid veteran before I'll believe it.  I want to hope that a new manager will maybe be a change in this regard, but far too often there has been deference to veterans over young players.  The only time this team has ever given jobs to young players is when they clear the path for them ala Hicks.  So yes, having depth is nice - I just hope the Twins entertain the idea that the depth in AAA is Pelfrey and Milone and not Alex Meyer.  (Should he truly earn it and be ready)

[Linus]

The list of regression vs. progression isn't favorable:

 

Regression Worse: Suzuki (significant), Santana (Possibly crazy amount here), Vargas, Escobar

 

Regression Better: Arcia, Mauer

 

I think we're a bottom half offense next year, with a mediocre bullpen, and an improved rotation.  That, however, is not the ingredients to contend.  And even if Buxton and Sano come up we should temper how quickly we declare them the missing ingredients of a top ten offense.  Rookies struggle the majority of the time and to expect differently is a bit naive.  That isn't to write off the possibility, but it seems kind of silly to always talk of forecasting in the most pollyanna sort of way.

Obviously we don't view this the same way and could debate the regression candidate business but here is what we know for sure - they scored the 5th most runs last year.  That has to mean something and to translate that into top 10 or so next year isn't "pollyanna" - it is quite reasonable.

[Linus]

I want to quibble a bit with this.  All of us who are Twins fans should hesitate to embrace this just because the organization has shown a strong tendency to not view these as true options.  There are default settings that prevent guys like May and Meyer from getting an equal shot at a spot.  It reminds me of an NFL coach telling the press there is a "Position Battle" at QB when everyone with a functioning brain stem knows who the starter is.  

 

The Twins have to prove to me that they will truly opt for the young kid pitching his butt off over the higher paid veteran before I'll believe it.  I want to hope that a new manager will maybe be a change in this regard, but far too often there has been deference to veterans over young players.  The only time this team has ever given jobs to young players is when they clear the path for them ala Hicks.  So yes, having depth is nice - I just hope the Twins entertain the idea that the depth in AAA is Pelfrey and Milone and not Alex Meyer.  (Should he truly earn it and be ready)

Levi - I generally agree with your point here.  I do think it is worth noting that Gibson won a rotation spot out of spring training last year.........

[TheLeviathan]

Obviously we don't view this the same way and could debate the regression candidate business but here is what we know for sure - they scored the 5th most runs last year.  That has to mean something and to translate that into top 10 or so next year isn't "pollyanna" - it is quite reasonable.

 

No, it's not and I didn't mean to imply that it was.  I understand how people could disagree within reason on that.  What I don't get is why people are harping on posters who think this team is still a non-contender.  The Twins have all but acknowledged as much themselves and there are a host of valid reasons to agree with them.

[Mike Sixel]

Levi - I generally agree with your point here.  I do think it is worth noting that Gibson won a rotation spot out of spring training last year.........

 

Gibson had a lot less competition, right? 

 

Hughes, Nolasco, Santana, Gibson are starting on the roster on day 1, unless there is an injury. That leaves 1 spot for a guy that is a veteran, or that had some good starts last year, or that has a history of good starts, or for a guy they limited to 80 pitches a start in AAA last year that finished the year hurt......ok, maybe I biased those descriptions, but maybe not.

Edited December 15, 2014 by mike wants wins

[TheLeviathan]

Levi - I generally agree with your point here.  I do think it is worth noting that Gibson won a rotation spot out of spring training last year.........

 

If we want to talk about Gibson, then 2014 isn't the example that would illustrate my point.  That would be 2013 when he was passed over in favor of the likes of Pedro Hernandez, Cole Devries, and the immortal PJ Walters.  

[Willihammer]

The list of regression vs. progression isn't favorable:

 

Regression Worse: Suzuki (significant), Santana (Possibly crazy amount here), Vargas, Escobar

 

Regression Better: Arcia, Mauer

 

I think we're a bottom half offense next year, with a mediocre bullpen, and an improved rotation.  That, however, is not the ingredients to contend.  And even if Buxton and Sano come up we should temper how quickly we declare them the missing ingredients of a top ten offense.  Rookies struggle the majority of the time and to expect differently is a bit naive.  That isn't to write off the possibility, but it seems kind of silly to always talk of forecasting in the most pollyanna sort of way.

Santana's the big regression guy but he's also going to be 24 and entering his second year. There's room for improvement in his game even if he experiences a decline in BABIP. He certainly seems to have some talent, although I'm not sure how much. Ditto Escobar and Vargas. Really late last year (last week or so) Vargas flashed the good plate discipline that he showed in the minors. If that was the start of a trend, that will offset some (or all) BABIP regression.

 

Also Suzuki settled into BABIP that was not far from his career norms. He's a regression candidate but not that huge of one.

[TheLeviathan]

Santana's the big regression guy but he's also going to be 24 and entering his second year. There's room for improvement in his game even if he experiences a decline in BABIP. He certainly seems to have some talent, although I'm not sure how much. Ditto Escobar and Vargas. Really late last year (last week or so) Vargas flashed the good plate discipline that he showed in the minors. If that was the start of a trend, that will offset some (or all) BABIP regression.

 

Also Suzuki settled into BABIP that was not far from his career norms. He's a regression candidate but not that huge of one.

 

BABIP alone seems to be a poor way to make such judgements.  I'd contend the better case for Escobar and Santana is that multiple years of minor league play indicate last year was an anomaly.  I hope I'm wrong because Santana is a fun player to watch and a favorite of mine already, but the vast majority of the time a guy wildly outperforms his track record it isn't something to bet on.

[Linus]

If we want to talk about Gibson, then 2014 isn't the example that would illustrate my point.  That would be 2013 when he was passed over in favor of the likes of Pedro Hernandez, Cole Devries, and the immortal PJ Walters.  

But wasn't he just coming of TJ?  Anyway, think of it this way, if they get passed over it won't be for Pedro Hernandez, Cole DeVries and the immortal PJ Walters.

[Nick Nelson]

Trevor May needs to learn how to throw strikes consistently, he'll always be a liability until that happens.  He did it for a long stretch in Rochester, but lost it after he missed some time with a minor injury.

 

Is that true, though? After his rocky first three MLB outings, he issued nine walks in 37 innings over seven starts with a 66% strike rate, which is better than league average. 

 

Personally I think May should enter camp as the favorite for that fifth spot.

[TheLeviathan]

But wasn't he just coming of TJ?  Anyway, think of it this way, if they get passed over it won't be for Pedro Hernandez, Cole DeVries and the immortal PJ Walters.

 

If it's Mike Pelfrey that might be in name only.  I just have a hard time sitting here and hearing people say "they'll get their shot!" when it seems like we're talking the clear runner up in the QB "battle".

 

But hey - I thoroughly hope Molly and the new staff prove me wrong.

[Linus]

No, it's not and I didn't mean to imply that it was.  I understand how people could disagree within reason on that.  What I don't get is why people are harping on posters who think this team is still a non-contender.  The Twins have all but acknowledged as much themselves and there are a host of valid reasons to agree with them.

I'm not harping on them because my belief is that there are all kinds of potential scenarios for next year that would fall on both sides of the ledger.  There are so many variables with this team that we can all have an opinion and hold it reasonably.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Linus

[Linus]

If it's Mike Pelfrey that might be in name only.  I just have a hard time sitting here and hearing people say "they'll get their shot!" when it seems like we're talking the clear runner up in the QB "battle".

 

But hey - I thoroughly hope Molly and the new staff prove me wrong.

It will be interesting to see if this dynamic does change.  We all know that Gardy was a guy that preferred veterans but I always kind of assumed TR was in the same camp.  Perhaps this isn't true and Molly will change it.

[Willihammer]

BABIP alone seems to be a poor way to make such judgements.  I'd contend the better case for Escobar and Santana is that multiple years of minor league play indicate last year was an anomaly.  I hope I'm wrong because Santana is a fun player to watch and a favorite of mine already, but the vast majority of the time a guy wildly outperforms his track record it isn't something to bet on.

OK well by that standard of "regression" you should probably take Vargas out of your worse bucket since he batted .852 in the minors.

[Dantes929]

I think the regression list is reasonable.   If we got .280 out of Santana but got a few more walks out of him I would take it.    That is a 70 point regression.  Suzuki drops 30 points to his norm.   I don't think Vargas really did so much more than we expect him to and it was just for a third of the year..  I have no idea what Escobar is really capable of but lets say a drop of 20 points off set by the number of bats he gets vs Florimon and we can call it a wash.    That is only a 100 point drop from those guys.    Assume Hunter can add 40 points over Willinigham. and I would be really disappointed if Mauer and Arcia don't add 70 points between them.   Of course this is all about average and not OBP or power.    I think we tend to overrate how good other team's offenses are.   Middle of the pack seems reasonable much like the rotation and the relief corp.    Middle of the pack on everything makes .500 reasonable.    .500 isn't really that far away from  contending, though of course its not that far away from bottom  half of the division either.    I am optimistic but I always am.  What is the fun in thinking Twins will only perform to their career averages or worse and that no one will ever have a good or even a career year.    I don't know why anyone would pigeonhole Mauer as a .270 singles hitter and Arcia a wild .230 batter.     Some of these guys are going to have good years  and someone of our prospects is going to have a break out year either pitching or batting.   If not, there is always next year.   With this group that is not an epitaph.

[Rosterman]

Remember, Meyer will probably be on a limit of 150-175 innings next year. Could see starting him out of the bullpen, or a call-up. 

 

What will be fascinating is to see how the bullpen works out for this season. We forget that many starters become relievers (Hawkins, Guardado, Perkins). But besides Johan, how many guys start in the bullpen and move to the rotation, unless they are swing men like, say, Swarzak, or the token long-man, usually youth to get their licks.

[TheLeviathan]

OK well by that standard of "regression" you should probably take Vargas out of your worse bucket since he batted .852 in the minors.

 

I expect Vargas to be this player long-term, certainly.  I also expect him to have happen to him what Arcia had in 2014.  Guys like Vargas tend to go through a tough adjustment in their second year and I expect that from Vargas this year.  

[ken]

On the surface, it's hard to not like the Santana signing because he will improve the rotation.  What I'm having a hard time understanding is what is the FO's plan.  Last year we had one of the oldest pitching staff that is now getting older. After another 90 lost season, we should be building not plugging holes. 

 

If Mays and Meyers are not ready yet, it's a big miss by Ryan.  We gave up two every day players for prospect that have not contributed and are already 25+.  Worley was also received in the trade and released and he performed better than most of the rotation.

 

Drafting college relief pitchers and trying to convert them to starter has not worked and now talking about maybe moving your best top level pitching prospect to the bullpen just doesn't give me confidence the FO has a plan.  Just throwing stuff against the wall and hoping something sticks.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Agreed.  I am not going to make a huge deal of signings some starters.  Very few world series championship teams have a rotation completely made up of in-house developed players.

 

I think the Twins had a pipe dream of that happening.  Five young studs who are cheap and propelling us to a championship.  I think it is a sign of progress that they re-assessed the strategy and made a change.

i think it is less a reassessment of strategy, than it is a reassessment of assets over time. Depending on both May and Meyer in 2015 or 2016 might be too big of a gamble for TR.

[goulik]

Bringing in Santana locks up only 2 spots IMHO. Hughes and Santana are locks. No one else. This is how you want to bring up a prospect, with competition where they actually earn it. I see Meyer and May potentially shuttling back and forth from Rochester some this year which is good! We handed Hicks the job, howd that work? You never want to hand a job to someone even if they are your hope for contention.

You want it Meyer? Then take it. Finally! Were doing this thing right finally!! Spring training is gonna be interesting!

[sploorp]

I don't get any of the "Twins are not a contending team" discussion.  Twins scored more runs than anyone in the last couple months of 2014.  Five competent starters should be enough to push the Twins into contention.

I'm wondering if the Twins front office are thinking the same thing.  Is it possible that Ryan & Co. think the team can contend this year?

[Thegrin]

If the hitters hit when the pitchers pitch, numbers don't mean anything. The record will have more wins than losses when the pitchers have only average stats

 

If the hitters hit when the pitchers don't pitch, we are looking at another 90 loss season. 

 

Its up to Molitor to get the Twins to play together.

[The Wise One]

If we want to talk about Gibson, then 2014 isn't the example that would illustrate my point.  That would be 2013 when he was passed over in favor of the likes of Pedro Hernandez, Cole Devries, and the immortal PJ Walters.  

in 2013 Gibson wasn't in spring training to win a spot on the roster. . I would think that you are also forgeting that Gibson had not pitched many innings the year before, he would be on an innings limit, and that no rookie was going to come out of spring tranning with those conditions and pitching as poorly as he was. When he did get up here, he pitched enough innings to get an idea of what it takes as well as displaying he needed to get that idea by the following spring or be back in Rochester. Also, I would think most fans could remember that Cole DeVries was on the dl,  and the immortal PJ Walter pitched about as well as Gibson did

[The Wise One]

^{Nolasco had a career high BABIP.  The number of line drives, ground balls and fly balls were about the same as always. ERA tanked. Do you think maybe there was a little problem with outfield defense?}

Edited December 16, 2014 by The Wise One

[TheLeviathan]

immortal PJ Walter pitched about as well as Gibson did

I really cannot understand this belief that rookies should only come up if they won't struggle. Not only does it not make sense on a number of levels and completely contradict volumes of evidence to the contrary, but this very team consistently calls up hitting prospects far less "ready" all the time.

 

Young players struggle to adjust at every level of advancement but you still have to advance them to know what you have.

[The Wise One]

I really cannot understand this belief that rookies should only come up if they won't struggle. Not only does it not make sense on a number of levels and completely contradict volumes of evidence to the contrary, but this very team consistently calls up hitting prospects far less "ready" all the time.

 

Young players struggle to adjust at every level of advancement but you still have to advance them to know what you have.

Did  ANYWHERE in the post I say rookies shouldn't come up if they struggle. Quite the contrary in that I stated he pitched long enough to get an idea what he needed to learn to be successful.   I am sorry I sould have used more words to explain my idea for you, for you clearly missed what I was getting at. Gibson did not pitch so well in his time up in the majors in 2013 that anyone should complain that he was held back because of AAAA pitchers and piters on the disabled list. He had time to struggle a bit to make the adjustments but not so much time to crush any confidence he had, if a 5+ ERA would ruin his belief in himself. Learning did happen as Gibson had a fine 2014. It is quite possible that the Twins brain trust handled Gibson appropriately.

 

Nice straw man Levi

Edited December 16, 2014 by The Wise One

[TheLeviathan]

Gibson did not pitch so well in his time up in the majors in 2013 that anyone should complain that he was held back because of AAAA pitchers and piters on the disabled list. 

 

This is exactly the point I was opposed to and it was clearly imbedded in your previous point as well.  His performance as a rookie shouldn't be held against his "readiness" - rookies struggle, even ones that go on to be brilliant players.  It's a poor gauge for whether or not they should be up or not.  (That goes for the reverse too - a hot start doesn't make them any more ready either as evidenced by Arcia and many, many others)