SCHREIER: Minnesota Twins GM Terry Ryan: "We Want A Postseason"

[JB_Iowa]

An interesting review of where the Twins stand and how they got there.  I don't agree with all of it (I think both Morneau and Cuddy needed a change of scenery) but it is a little review of where things are at-- particularly on pitching:

 

http://www.105theticket.com/common/page.php?pt=SCHREIER%3A+Minnesota+Twins+GM+Terry+Ryan%3A+%22We+Want+A+Postseason%22&id=9012&is_corp=0

 

 

Of course Ryan wants a postseason, but in order to get there, he has to assemble a team talented enough to compete for the AL Central crown. Blame former manager Ron Gardenhire all you want, but in the last three years he was given a rotation full of pitchers that could not get out of the fourth inning and a lineup half full of hitters who couldn’t, you know, hit. Blame Joe Mauer all you want, but he got hurt because, well, he’s human, and he can’t pitch and catch at the same time. Blame the Pohlads all you want, but they’ve insisted since Target Field opened that they’re willing to spend whatever it takes to put a winner on the field.

 

This one falls squarely on Ryan, his inner circle (Rob Antony, Bill Smith, etc.) and the scouts employed by the Twins.

[nicksaviking]

This quote upsets me badly:

 

“I’m not sure you need a true No. 1 to get to the postseason,” he said after the signing. “We have not had a true No. 1 in many of those years that we got there, so if you’ve got the five solid, you’ve got a pretty good chance to get there, and then let the playoffs dictate exactly where you’re headed.”

 

Yeah, perhaps you don't need an ace to GET to the playoffs, but how has he not realized by now that you need one, or two or three to win it all?! So tired of this attitude, he doesn't get it. 

[Lonestar]

Would you call James Shields an ace?  Yet the Royals made the World Series and came close to winning it all.

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, perhaps you don't need an ace to GET to the playoffs, but how has he not realized by now that you need one, or two or three to win it all?! So tired of this attitude, he doesn't get it. 

 

Well since it's not true, I'm not sure why he has to get it.  Aces do not win World Series.  Flukey small sample size runs do - and those happen in all sorts of whacky ways.

[Dman]

Would you call James Shields an ace?  Yet the Royals made the World Series and came close to winning it all.

 

I wouldn't say Shields pitched all that well in the playoffs but Ventura was their stopper and pitched like one.  The team with the Ace and better pitching did win it.  What the Royals did have was dominant ace like pitching from their bullpen.  I tend to agree with Nick that if you want to go far you better have at least one guy that is ace caliber.

 

 The Ryan way got us to the playoffs but one and done too many times.  Beane recognized the ace pitching truth as well and tried to get better but it didn't work out for him because they somehow lost their hitting.  

 

I agree baseball is fickle and the team with the best pitching staff might not make it but by and large pitching wins it. I don't see many teams looking for average pitching to make it to the playoffs. Best to have ace or stopper if you want to win the World Series.

[Brandon]

The Twins had the best pitcher in the majors in Santana a few years back and didn't win in the playoffs.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree baseball is fickle and the team with the best pitching staff might not make it but by and large pitching wins it. I don't see many teams looking for average pitching to make it to the playoffs. Best to have ace or stopper if you want to win the World Series.

 

That's just not true.  Every year teams get beat by teams with inferior pitching staffs.  Is it better to have an elite pitcher than not?  Sure, of course.  Just like it's better to have an elite SS than not.

 

But there is no correlation with that and winning World Series. 

[nicksaviking]

Well since it's not true, I'm not sure why he has to get it.  Aces do not win World Series.  Flukey small sample size runs do - and those happen in all sorts of whacky ways.

 

Fine, only one team in the last twenty years has won a World Series without an ace and the Twins have never won without an ace. 

 

Better?

[Dman]

The Twins had the best pitcher in the majors in Santana a few years back and didn't win in the playoffs.

 

Sometimes it takes more than one to get there.  

[PseudoSABR]

Fine, only one team in the last twenty years has won a World Series without an ace and the Twins have never won without an ace. 

 

Better?

How many of those teams purchased their Ace through Free Agency?

[old nurse]

That's just not true.  Every year teams get beat by teams with inferior pitching staffs.  Is it better to have an elite pitcher than not?  Sure, of course.  Just like it's better to have an elite SS than not.

 

But there is no correlation with that and winning World Series. 

Levi, get out the AED

 

I agree with you

[Willihammer]

These ace debates are always frustrating because everyone has a different definition of ace. Are we talking about the top 10 starting pitchers? Top 30?

 

But, its a pretty moot debate anyway. Phil Hughes was one of the top 10 starters in baseball last year. He is an ace IMO.

[gunnarthor]

Fine, only one team in the last twenty years has won a World Series without an ace and the Twins have never won without an ace. 

 

Better?

Guess it depends on how liberal you are with the "Ace" definition.  Bumgarner was a 4 WAR pitcher last year (his best year), which wasn't even top 10 in the NL.  If he was an ace, so was Hughes.

 

The 2013 Red Sox had a great half season from Clay Bucholtz but Lester and Lackey were nothing special.  The 2011 Cards had 4 starters make 30+ starts, Carpenter was the best (11-9, 3.45 era, 237ip, 108 ERA+, 3.5 WAR, 7.2 k/9).  etc, etc  

 

Ryan is right, we need a bunch of solid starters.  It's good that Ryan isn't pursuing some false statement that sounds like it should be right and is instead focusing on what is actually needed.

[Dman]

These ace debates are always frustrating because everyone has a different definition of ace. Are we talking about the top 10 starting pitchers? Top 30?

 

But, its a pretty moot debate anyway. Phil Hughes was one of the top 10 starters in baseball last year. He is an ace IMO.

 

That is true and mine is pretty liberal.  Often times it wouldn't even be stats through the entire year that determine it for me but how they are pitching near the end of the season.  That is why I used stopper and not just ace in my description.  

 

My only complaint is that if great pitching doesn't really matter to win a world series.  Why all the hand wringing over FIP and xFIP and on and on to measure when in the end it doesn't really matter if you are a great pitcher or not.  I don't get that.

[RealTwinsFan357]

Beane recognized the ace pitching truth as well and tried to get better but it didn't work out for him because they somehow lost their hitting.

 

 

I agree Oakland's offense suffered, but they scored plenty of runs in the wildcard game, their ace and bullpen lost them that game

[Dman]

I agree Oakland's offense suffered, but they scored plenty of runs in the wildcard game, their ace and bullpen lost them that game

 

yep I agree the Ace level bullpen won that game for them and several that followed as well.  If they were average they likely would have lost.

[Brandon]

Here's the pitching equation I noticed Terry Ryan works off of since I have watched the Twins.  Why does he do this?  Because its the most cost effective and risk averse.

 

The goal is to get 5 starters who can pitch 180-210 innings with around a league average era.  (anyone can then have a breakout year)  If the rotation has an era of league average.  Lets use 4.00 for this example we have 2/3 of our innings pitched with a 4.00 aggregate ERA

 

Then we have an above average bullpen and lets use 3.30 for their era. now when we do the math.

 

2/3 of the innings from the rotation *4.00 = 2.67 + 1/3 of the innings from the bullpen * 3.30 = 1.1 add them together for a team ERA of 3.77 which is about .25 point less than league average. 

 

With an above average offense (put together most cost effectively) 9 solid hitters with 1 or 2 real good hitters but the hitters average 70-80 RBI's then the lineup will be cost effective and score 4.25 or so runs per game and that would give us a run differential of +80. 

 

That's how Terry Ryan builds his teams.  That's how they were structured when we won in the early 2000's and that's how he is putting them together now.  Pretty soon the only available upgrades to our roster will be is we get someone really expensive.  Back when we won in the early 2000's outside of the 5th starter and Bautista/ White the next available upgrade at each position would have cost a lot for a marginal improvement.  Think about it.  The next best available upgrade over Santana would be Shields and he'll cost twice as much and how much better will he really be?  Shields will pitch 15-20 more innings and give up around 10 -15 runs less than Santana for 2 times the money. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Here's the pitching equation I noticed Terry Ryan works off of since I have watched the Twins.  Why does he do this?  Because its the most cost effective and risk averse.

 

The goal is to get 5 starters who can pitch 180-210 innings with around a league average era.  (anyone can then have a breakout year)  If the rotation has an era of league average.  Lets use 4.00 for this example we have 2/3 of our innings pitched with a 4.00 aggregate ERA

 

Then we have an above average bullpen and lets use 3.30 for their era. now when we do the math.

 

2/3 of the innings from the rotation *4.00 = 2.67 + 1/3 of the innings from the bullpen * 3.30 = 1.1 add them together for a team ERA of 3.77 which is about .25 point less than league average. 

 

With an above average offense (put together most cost effectively) 9 solid hitters with 1 or 2 real good hitters but the hitters average 70-80 RBI's then the lineup will be cost effective and score 4.25 or so runs per game and that would give us a run differential of +80. 

 

That's how Terry Ryan builds his teams.  That's how they were structured when we won in the early 2000's and that's how he is putting them together now.  Pretty soon the only available upgrades to our roster will be is we get someone really expensive.  Back when we won in the early 2000's outside of the 5th starter and Bautista/ White the next available upgrade at each position would have cost a lot for a marginal improvement.  Think about it.  The next best available upgrade over Santana would be Shields and he'll cost twice as much and how much better will he really be?  Shields will pitch 15-20 more innings and give up around 10 -15 runs less than Santana for 2 times the money.

 

Just curious, but do you remember the average age of the 2000-2001 teams?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Guess it depends on how liberal you are with the "Ace" definition.  Bumgarner was a 4 WAR pitcher last year (his best year), which wasn't even top 10 in the NL.  If he was an ace, so was Hughes.

 

The 2013 Red Sox had a great half season from Clay Bucholtz but Lester and Lackey were nothing special.  The 2011 Cards had 4 starters make 30+ starts, Carpenter was the best (11-9, 3.45 era, 237ip, 108 ERA+, 3.5 WAR, 7.2 k/9).  etc, etc  

 

Ryan is right, we need a bunch of solid starters.  It's good that Ryan isn't pursuing some false statement that sounds like it should be right and is instead focusing on what is actually needed.

Ryan is doing what he thinks will make the Twins a playoff contender, not a pennant contender. Setting his sights very low. I don't know if he believes that the Twins playoff record the last decade can be explained away by pure luck and small sample size. That playoff record is quite an outlier.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

A pennant race or even winning record would be a huge success this season. No doubt. I can maybe accept that we have the right players in place this year to shoot for that goal, and that for this year, that would be a good outcome.

 

When the time comes, I hope that Ryan has the guts to cast aside the spectrum of "above average" pitchers like Hughes, Nolasco and Santana and roll with guys who might be huge difference makers, like Meyer and Berrios. Same with the Plouffe/Sano situation.

[gunnarthor]

Ryan is doing what he thinks will make the Twins a playoff contender, not a pennant contender. Setting his sights very low. I don't know if he believes that the Twins playoff record the last decade can be explained away by pure luck and small sample size. That playoff record is quite an outlier.

I would hope he doesn't give a minute of thought to 6 five game series and 1 seven game series.  They tell you next to nothing and trying to make a cumulative case out of all seven is a fool's errand.  If they make the playoffs, they are good enough to win in the playoffs.

[Dman]

  If they make the playoffs, they are good enough to win in the playoffs.

 

Seems to be have been proven true this year.  Both teams were wild cards so there you have it.  It is whoever gets hot at the right time, but I think most teams want the best odds they can get and better players = better odds.  

[nicksaviking]

I would hope he doesn't give a minute of thought to 6 five game series and 1 seven game series.  They tell you next to nothing and trying to make a cumulative case out of all seven is a fool's errand.  If they make the playoffs, they are good enough to win in the playoffs.

 

Sometimes you're good enough to make it to the playoffs because your division stinks.  When the Twins were making it to the playoffs and losing to the Yankees, they were also losing to the Yankees at something like a 90% clip in the regular season.  They were making the post season, but their regular season performance sure seemed to indicate that no, they would not be able to win in the postseason.

[Riverbrian]

When it comes to winning baseball... I strongly believe there are many ways to skin a cat.

 

I'll be much happier when the Twins actually locate the cat first.

[gunnarthor]

Sometimes you're good enough to make it to the playoffs because your division stinks.  When the Twins were making it to the playoffs and losing to the Yankees, they were also losing to the Yankees at something like a 90% clip in the regular season.  They were making the post season, but their regular season performance sure seemed to indicate that no, they would not be able to win in the postseason.

And yet, since 2010, the Twins have a winning record in NY.  Seems silly to put too much emphasis on six games out of 162. 

 

And the AL East wasn't always the end-all be-all division.  The 02 West had three teams with 93 wins or more - naturally, Twins had a winning record against everyone but Oakland (who they beat in the playoffs).

 

And the ****ty division thing is always thrown at the Twins but is it true?  The 05 White Sox pretty darn good and crushed the post season.  But it took them three years to get past the Twins.  The 06 Central had 3 90 win teams and the stat heads like Cleveland even more.  The 2010 team was plain good. The recent AL central teams - Tigers and Royals - have won while coming out of a weak division (as have teams like the Cards in certain years as well).  

[Kwak]

Sometimes you're good enough to make it to the playoffs because your division stinks.  When the Twins were making it to the playoffs and losing to the Yankees, they were also losing to the Yankees at something like a 90% clip in the regular season.  They were making the post season, but their regular season performance sure seemed to indicate that no, they would not be able to win in the postseason.

So true (except for the '06 season).  The Twins benefitted from the dismembership of  Cleveland, KC's perpetual malaise, Detroit was simply terrible until the owner demanded (and funded) success leaving  only one viable opponent--CWS.  Things have changed--Detroit might be Cleveland of 15 years ago, but Cleveland, KC, and Chicago are committed to being a winning team.  But the Twins?  IMO their committment borders between KC of 15 years ago to hoping to become an 80-win team--but with a very controlled payroll.

[Willihammer]

Seems to be have been proven true this year.  Both teams were wild cards so there you have it.  It is whoever gets hot at the right time, but I think most teams want the best odds they can get and better players = better odds.  

Fun fact, the Vegas underdog won every single series in the 2014 playoffs.

[Lonestar]

As a rule of thumb, Fangraphs defines a superstar position player or starting pitcher as one who generates 5 WAR. If we use that as a threshhold for an ace, 8 of the last 13 World Series champions have failed to field an ace.  And that's after giving the 2003 Marlins credit for Beckett's partial season.

 

Only one of those champions had two aces -- the 2004 Red Sox.  The 2014 Tigers had 2 aces and failed to go to the Series.  The White Sox had two and didn't sniff the playoffs.

 

Ryan values aces.  So far he gets them relatively cheaply.  Santana, Liriano (on occasion), Hughes (if he doesn't regress too far).  Meyers will be cheap if he becomes an ace, but look at the risk the Twins took on.  Berrios, Stewart or Thorpe would be cheap if they were to make it.

 

Do you expect the Twins to win a bidding war this year for Lester or Scherzer?  Lester didn't even sign for the highest offer.  Do you even want to win that war?

 

Do you think the Twins should have traded for 1 year of Samardzija?

 

It's true Ryan did not trade for Cliff Lee in 2010 [when Liriano was an ace].  Without 20:20 hindsight, what would you have given up to beat the package the Rangers gave up, headlined by Smoak and Bleaven.  Your possibilities were Ramos, Gibson, Hicks, Sano, Benson, Revere, Wimmers, Salcedo, Arcia, and Gutierrez.

[Dman]

Fun fact, the Vegas underdog won every single series in the 2014 playoffs.

 

Man those have to be some pretty long odds.  I wonder if that has ever happened before?  That is interesting.  The underdog lost in the WS though right?

[gunnarthor]

As a rule of thumb, Fangraphs defines a superstar position player or starting pitcher as one who generates 5 WAR. If we use that as a threshhold for an ace, 8 of the last 13 World Series champions have failed to field an ace.  And that's after giving the 2003 Marlins credit for Beckett's partial season.

 

Only one of those champions had two aces -- the 2004 Red Sox.  The 2014 Tigers had 2 aces and failed to go to the Series.  The White Sox had two and didn't sniff the playoffs.

 

Ryan values aces.  So far he gets them relatively cheaply.  Santana, Liriano (on occasion), Hughes (if he doesn't regress too far).  Meyers will be cheap if he becomes an ace, but look at the risk the Twins took on.  Berrios, Stewart or Thorpe would be cheap if they were to make it.

 

Do you expect the Twins to win a bidding war this year for Lester or Scherzer?  Lester didn't even sign for the highest offer.  Do you even want to win that war?

 

Do you think the Twins should have traded for 1 year of Samardzija?

 

It's true Ryan did not trade for Cliff Lee in 2010 [when Liriano was an ace].  Without 20:20 hindsight, what would you have given up to beat the package the Rangers gave up, headlined by Smoak and Bleaven.  Your possibilities were Ramos, Gibson, Hicks, Sano, Benson, Revere, Wimmers, Salcedo, Arcia, and Gutierrez.

Good post, two small points.  Ryan wasn't GM in 2010 and Smith did offer Ramos and Hicks for Lee.  Seattle took the Rangers offer.