Baseball Prospectus article on the '15 Twins rotation

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

I always get excited when baseball writers choose to write something about the the home team, whether it is good or bad. I especially like it when it is analytical, and not just point out they are good/bad, but more so looking at things deeper. Anyway, I read a good article at Baseball Prospectus today that was on the failure of the Twins to put the best 5 pitchers in the organization on the mound at any given point. I will leave just the final paragraph and link (payer.) I am not sure if I would get in trouble if I copy and pasted the whole article. 

 

 

Matthew Trueblood-----"Humans are too often guilty of seeing a problem with many possible solutions of similar probabilistic promise and declaring it a muddle. It’s not a muddle. If there’s no such thing as a pitcher, that shouldn’t lead a team to throw its hands up, or to take an un-nuanced approach to building a pitching staff. It shouldn’t lead a team to allow critical pitching decisions to be made based on soft factors or contract status. It should, instead, lead teams to strive diligently to optimize their pitching decisions at all times, with special emphasis given to keeping pitching moves cost-efficient. If the margins are always thin, the gaps in talent or projectability always likely to be outrun by swings in variance, it actually becomes more important than ever to put the numbers on one’s side. The Twins didn’t do it this season. They didn’t make sure they put the best available arm on the mound as often as possible, and they didn’t systematically build a pitching staff the cost of which correlated well with its value. They’ve caught some bad breaks and had a few things unexpectedly go missing, but if they miss the playoffs because of the shortcomings of their rotation, it’s not going to be the universe’s fault. It’s going to be the Twins’."

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=27496

[mikelink45]

If what he says is true, he is to be congratulated, and what he says is true. We could have called up Dean and Berrios and even more. We could have filled the bullpen and not rely on just Logan Darnell for long relief. We could have had other options than the worn out mediocre arms we trot out each week. We could have give the team a better chance and when we score 8 runs like last night, we might win.

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

 

I just looked up Mathews profile.  7 months ago he was a collections specialist.  He is a kid.   Yet, seems to think he knows more than Molitor and the rest of the Twins FO.  I am getting pretty sick of people with no credentials thinking they have all the answers.  Hell, I don't even care if he is right.  He should take a less presumption approach until he is a lot more experienced.

Okay, but Baseball Prospectus seems to believe he was a kid worth hiring. A list of their past writers, is kind of a who's who list of sorts, and many have or currently gone on to work in front offices. Age and experience do not necessarily have to correlate with intelligence or correctness. Anyway, I was just passing on something I read, because I enjoy all takes about my favorite team. 

[ashbury]

 

I will leave just the final paragraph and link (payer.) I am not sure if I would get in trouble if I copy and pasted the whole article.

From a TD moderation standpoint you did it just right. The comment policy covers the question, BTW.

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/8228-twins-daily-comment-policy-latest-revision-september-2013/?p=164095

[glunn]

Moderator note -- I have deleted some posts that contained bickering.  Personal attacks on other posters are not appropriate.

[dbminn]

His intro is full of what are called "glittering generalities". Plenty of rhetorical pomp as well.

 

Can't tell the basis for his argument without a subscription. Please give us a general review of the rest of the article.

[USAFChief]

Moderator note: in addition to Glunn's timely reminder to stay away from personal insults, I'm going to ask posters to please refrain from thread jacking by attacking the author rather than the substance.

 

Discuss the points made, or don't post. It's unproductive to continually attack people instead of ideas, and leads to potentially interesting threads getting sidetracked into squabbles. That goes whether the author is from another site or publication, one of our owners or contributors, or just Joe Random Poster.

 

Thank you.

[Riverbrian]

It's hard to gauge what the writers point was from this paragraph alone. 

 

Other than he is critical of something. 

 

 

[Craig Arko]

Test Test

 

You passed.

 

I read your original post before you changed it, and I have to think there is a middle (dare I say 'moderate') ground between treating all opinions as equal in weight, or giving up thinking and posting if you don't.

[Riverbrian]

 

You passed.

I read your original post before you changed it, and I have to think there is a middle (dare I say 'moderate') ground between treating all opinions as equal in weight, or giving up thinking and posting if you don't.

 

I changed my post because I was contributing to the derailing of the topic. I then wanted to come up with something real intelligent to discuss the writers thoughts and then I realized that I can't figure out what the writers thoughts were.

 

Other than the Twins Blew it somehow. We are a game out... nothing has been blown yet and the paragraph doesn't explain how the Twins blew it. 

 

I'll also add.. "if the Twins don't make the playoffs... it will be the Twins fault" is a throw away comment to me.

 

The Truth is... There is a real chance of failure and if it happens... Well there ya go... This writer has tied it up all the nuance and the sheer competition of all teams trying hard to win with one sentence. 

 

AND... AND...  What if the Twins do make the playoffs? What if the Astros and all the moves they made don't make the playoffs? Will that be the Astros Fault? 

 

Lines like that are just too easy to write but much more difficult to truly assess in real life. 

[Badsmerf]

You can give a summary, with a few quotes thrown in if you want. Just like worrying a paper, there is a line where it becomes plagiarized.

 

I think the article is most likely confirming what many have said all season: the twins are not using the best 5 starting pitchers in the organization. It's been pretty clear all along, and why many have finally turned on terry Ryan.

 

I'd like to see some of the evidence presented.

[Shane Wahl]

I haven't read the article in full. But the way this thread has gone is bizarre.

 

The closing paragraph is uncontroversial.

[bird]

I won't attack the writer's credentials, but look at that face! 

 

Kidding, glunn.

 

Seriously, I think the writer is taking a rather un-nuanced stance here. To the writer, nothing is muddled. Because, you see, he's put the numbers on HIS side. He did the arithmetic, and got a handle on all the "gaps in projectability". He mastered the "swings in variation". He adroitly computed the "correlations between cost and value" and eliminated all those pesky "soft factors".

 

I'm sorry, but I think this is a bunch of gobbledygook (sic).

 

If I were his Little League coach, I'd throw this precocious kid out in right field regardless of how talented he was and make him repeatedly shout the phrase "it IS a muddle" until his mom came out of the stands to beat me with her cell phone.

[Badsmerf]

 

If I were his Little League coach, I'd throw this precocious kid out in right field regardless of how talented he was and make him repeatedly shout the phrase "it IS a muddle" until his mom came out of the stands to beat me with her cell phone.

This sounds like it has already happened to you once....

[JustinCB]

Hey, why did I get deleted? Here I am trying to click on all the likes I got and.......no post!

[rukavina]

My reply, posted on BP

 

This article seems to be a more egregious example of driving a car by looking in the rear view mirror. The Twins had an enormous hole in their farm system for starting pitchers. They had a fan base and a new ballpark that deserved something better than Liam Hendricks and Samuel Deduno. Table stakes for a #3/4 starting pitcher is 4 years, $50 million. If the answer is more youth, you wouldn't have your hypothetical case of still being in it in September.

[DocBauer]

I don't have a subscription, and therefore, have not and will not read the article in its entirety. However, the little "gist" hinted at, the last paragraph, etc, I think we all kind of get the basics. And I agree it all sounds like a fuzzy logic argument to me.

 

If the Twins reach the wild card....the argument is they could have contended for the division, if not more.

If the Twins don't reach the wild card...the argument is they didn't because the author is still equally correct.

 

Now...if there were some hard data facts presented...hmmm...maybe. But speculation on who is better doesn't always quantify itself in the form of hard facts.

 

Example...IMHO...I don't believe in any logic that states Berrios is a top young pitcher... Berrios has better pure stuff than say Pelfrey...therefore, the Twins are better with Berrios starting in his place. (again, this is an example, and not an attempt to begin another soapbox debate on Berrios himself)

 

Now, could this be true? Yes. But it's just as likely, indeed, probably much moreso, that the younger, more talented, and obviously far less experienced Berrios would could up and be hit pretty hard. At least initially. So, again, I think the entire argument is somewhat arbitrary.

 

On the other hand, while still probably not provable, I think the argument COULD be made that keeping May in the rotation...with the numbers he was showing and trending...and bringing in another bullpen arm or demoting Pelfrey...COULD lead to better results. That argument has a great deal more validity.

 

So at the end of the day, without knowing the entire context of the article and the argument, I have to simple say "pass" on the conclusions as they are presented. It's hard to argue with a team winning, in contention, and exceeding all pre- season expectations.

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

I love the stathead analysis of the Twins.  Not only do the Twins 1) not have the 'talent' to win, they've also 2) mismanaged that talent.  At some point the fact that they continue to win should call into question at least one of the two propositions, and the methods for reaching those conclusions, at least as they apply to the how the Twins go about their business.   To continue to assert that the Twins don't know to develop their players or utilize their assets is to miss the forest for the trees.

 

I don't have a BP subscription, so I don't know, but I hope any analysis of the Twins not putting their best pitchers on the mound include the recent examples of Trevor May's and Kyle Gibson's initial failures in spite of dominating minor league numbers.  

 

In general I have no problem with sabermetrics as a tool for evaluation (in fact, I enjoy it); put it's just that, a tool, an imperfect tool. What rubs me the wrong way is the certitude sabermetric writers continue to have about their conclusions and predictions.  That data-analysis somehow absolutely undercuts expertise derived from experience. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

The closing paragraph is uncontroversial.

Well if you say so...