Berrios getting hosed

[tobi0040]

 

Doing this makes the most sense, but again, the Twins haven't used that to their obvious benefit in recent years. 

 

I don't know that the Twins have been put in that position though, at least not for a guy that is likely to command top dollars in free agency.  Sano and Buxton both came after the deadline last year, in the mix of the 20 or so top prospects that all debuted shortly after the super 2 deadline.  But both had cases that you could say needed some minor league AB's last year.

 

The only one I could think of is Gibson, but he is controlled through age 32 and not likely going to be a $100m pitcher.

[bird]

Why are we so positive Berrios would have dominated, or even pitched well, if he had been called up? It's not much more unlikely that he struggles a great deal in his first dozen or so starts when he finally does get promoted despite his nice minor leagues stats, all the laudatory comments, the twitter campaign, and all the fan hype. Maybe he dominates from the start, but I think the optimism is off the charts here.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Why are we so positive Berrios would have dominated, or even pitched well, if he had been called up? It's not much more unlikely that he struggles a great deal in his first dozen or so starts when he finally does get promoted despite his nice minor leagues stats, all the laudatory comments, the twitter campaign, and all the fan hype. Maybe he dominates from the start, but I think the optimism is off the charts here.

 

What was more likely, May doing well in a spot start, not stretched out, then not available for a week, or Berrios doing well? No one is ever sure anyone will be good, but you can't wait until you are sure, because you can never be sure.

[bird]

 

The fans deserved Berrios. Plain and simple. TR claimed he was doing the right thing for the "kid" by sending him home in early Sept. But its clear he was acting on behalf of the owner for strictly financial reasons. Its plain to see that Berrios is a better pitcher RIGHT NOW than anyone they sent out for a start last season.

 

Any fan that thinks they "deserved" Berrios has a distorted sense of entitlement. Plain and simple.

 

No one's going to change your mind about the Twin's motives here. But fans can be both supportive of the owner's rights and the idea of the organization spending more on payroll. They're not mutually exclusive.

[bird]

 

What was more likely, May doing well in a spot start, not stretched out, then not available for a week, or Berrios doing well? No one is ever sure anyone will be good, but you can't wait until you are sure, because you can never be sure.

 

 

This has been re-hashed to death, Mike, but IMO both May or Berrios performing well were unlikely. My own vote would've gone to Berrios though. They didn't ask.

 

But just because you, me or anyone else is "sure" about which is more likely, it hardly qualifies as something about which we paint this picture of what a complete travesty it was to not promote him in September, let alone for the infamous May start that people have turned into this season-altering disaster.

[Seth Stohs]

 

I don't know that the Twins have been put in that position though, at least not for a guy that is likely to command top dollars in free agency.  Sano and Buxton both came after the deadline last year, in the mix of the 20 or so top prospects that all debuted shortly after the super 2 deadline.  But both had cases that you could say needed some minor league AB's last year.

 

The only one I could think of is Gibson, but he is controlled through age 32 and not likely going to be a $100m pitcher.

 

Gibson was called up in July, after missing a year with Tommy John.

 

Not sure if the system was exactly the same (I think it was), but Joe Mauer was there on Opening Day. Aaron Hicks out of AA. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

This has been re-hashed to death, Mike, but IMO both May or Berrios performing well were unlikely. My own vote would've gone to Berrios though. They didn't ask.

 

But just because you, me or anyone else is "sure" about which is more likely, it hardly qualifies as something about which we paint this picture of what a complete travesty it was to not promote him in September, let alone for the infamous May start that people have turned into this season-altering disaster.

 

Not sure what this post is....other than "don't second guess the Twins". Making this whole site useless.

[tobi0040]

 

Gibson was called up in July, after missing a year with Tommy John.

 

Not sure if the system was exactly the same (I think it was), but Joe Mauer was there on Opening Day. Aaron Hicks out of AA. 

 

I was thinking back to when Gibson made the team the following year.  I guess that didn't have the control implications I thought it did.

 

With Mauer we are going back eleven years.  And trading Span for a minor leaguer created the opening for Hicks, so I am not sure that is a great example of the Twins ponying up

 

 

[Bob Sacamento]

For giggles:

 

ZiPs Projections for next year are nice to Berrios:

 

26GS, 146 1/3 IP, 149 H, 40 BB, 130 K, 4.18 ERA, 1.29 WHIP, 1.7 WAR, Best Comp - Adam Wainwright

 

 

Rest of the team Zips can be found here:  

 

**ZiPS projections are computer-based projections of performance. Performances have not been allocated to predicted playing time in the majors — many of the players listed above are unlikely to play in the majors at all in 2016. ZiPS is projecting equivalent production — a .240 ZiPS projection may end up being .280 in AAA or .300 in AA, for example. Whether or not a player will play is one of many non-statistical factors one has to take into account when predicting the future.

[Dman]

i think there were a lot of reasons they didn't want to add Berrios last year.  First they didn't want to use up a 40 man spot as they might need to protect someone from the rule V (although I think if Dean was no longer with the team it wouldn't be the end of the world). Second he had thrown thrown a lot of pitches and personally I like the idea of protecting him.  Third there is the service time angle.  Fourth we don't really know if he would have been good or bad.  I think he would more likely be good than bad but he is young and adjusting to MLB hitters isn't exactly easy.  I have seen plenty of guys come up and get hit hard.

 

So yeah I think the Twins had their legitimate reasons to not add him and given the way the rotation is shaping up they will likely see what the Vets do first before trying other options.  He is young and will be up this year for sure just a matter of time.

 

Having said all that I did want to see him in the Bullpen at the end of last season.  I think if he does well there it could have changed how the season played out but that is just my opinion.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I really don't get the conclusion of the original author. Berrios is hardly being held back. He's been through the low and high minors in 3 seasons. Add to it that there's a real innings limitation that has to be respected as he gets stretched out, the fact that someone gets DFAd in order for him to be called up, likely real developmental reasons in AAA (I guarantee you he's not just going out there and doing his thing, his coaches have him working on things), and the fact that we have 7 starters for 5 spots as it is. We may not like all the reasons, but that's the economic reality of baseball, especially when 3 guys in the rotation have guaranteed contracts. If there's reason to be upset right now, it's b/c this team handed out 3 long term FA contracts which don't expire for 2, 3, and 5 more seasons.

[bird]

 

Not sure what this post is....other than "don't second guess the Twins". Making this whole site useless.

 

 

You suggest it's likely Berrios would have performed well. I'm second guessing you, not suggesting you stop second guessing the Twins.

 

The Twins leave themselves plenty open to second guessing as you know better than anyone. But you do too. For example, when you say the Twins decided against promoting Berrios to win and make the playoffs, you're dead wrong. And when you say there was no evidence of an innings issue with Berrios, you're apparently choosing to ignore the fact that it was mentioned as one of the concerns, so you're wrong there too. But being wrong a lot shouldn't stop you from second guessing them. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

And when you say there was an innings issue with Berrios, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that that was a problem completely of the Twins own making. Unless the Rochester manager was going rogue against explicit instructions, in which case I assume he is no longer employed with the organization.

[drjim]

And when you say there was an innings issue with Berrios, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that that was a problem completely of the Twins own making. Unless the Rochester manager was going rogue against explicit instructions, in which case I assume he is no longer employed with the organization.

I'm not sure. The Twins would have had to know before the season that Berrios was going to blow through 2 levels and they would have been as competitive as they were. The odds of both were low, and certainly not high enough to implement a development plan that was not optimal.

 

It wasn't until after the all star break that it seemed he would be an option.

 

I would have given him the May start, but if he was called up no chance he would have the innings to finish the season as a starter.

 

The alternative would have been to curtail his innings starting in July and given him a role as a 2-3 inning reliever in August and September. I probably would have done this too, but we can't pretend this is without risk or cost.

 

Three other teams were in similar situations (young pitcher ready and team competing) and two of them, Pitt and Tampa, did the same thing as the Twins, Houston was more aggressive.

 

I would have been a little more aggressive but I don't fault conservatism when it comes to young arms.

[drjim]

There is zero evidence about the innings thing being real.....and yes, he should have been up last year. But, they didn't promote any pitcher that could have really helped the bullpen last year....He should have started the May start.

Are you sure there is zero evidence?

 

Doesn't give you a little pause that no team, across all spectrums of being progressive and/or statistically driven, will push significant innings increases in young pitchers?

 

I suspect very strongly there is some information and evidence out there even if it isn't readily available in the public domain.

 

And even if not, we will never conclusively know because no team will take that risk on a significant enough sample of young arms. So citing "no evidence" is meaningless.

[Thrylos]

 

Gibson was called up in July, after missing a year with Tommy John.

 

Not sure if the system was exactly the same (I think it was), but Joe Mauer was there on Opening Day. Aaron Hicks out of AA. 

 

This is comparing apples with pineapples because that July those Twins were hosed.

[HitInAPinch]

Yeah, Berrios is sure getting hosed:  21 years old [22 at the end of May] and he's on the cusp of being a Major Leaguer. 

[gopherman23]

Arguably, Berrios was not the best starter in Rochester last season based on results (depending how you are counting; Duffey had better ERA, FIP and BB/9,) much more "their best young pitcher". I can think at least of 2-3 more that may deserve that title better than Berrios, based on stuff.

You seriously can't believe this can you? The kid was dominating the International League as a 21 year old in August and September. He had a sub 2 ERA with a ridiculous 53/4 K/BB ratio in 45 innings pitched. Straight domination as one of the youngest players in AAA.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Not sure what this post is....other than "don't second guess the Twins". Making this whole site useless.

Second-guessing the Twins is probably fine with everyone.  What bothers me, at least, is the insistence that the criticism is clear/obvious (or likely as you put it), and the exasperated tone that comes with it.   The decision to not bring up Berrios for even one start is complicated in terms of near future returns (winning that game/roster flexibility) and long term prospects for the player, both in financial and player development terms.  In my opinion the complexity of the decision combined with our lack of first hand knowledge undercuts how sure any poster can be about second-guessing that decision.    It's just like your opinion on how clear an issue is or how obviously likely something is, dude.

 

[RaymondLuxuryYacht]

hosed?

[Liquidator]

We have to let prospects fail like Atlanta did with Smoltz and Galvine.  Communication is the key.  Let kids know what they are up against.  Reemphasize the better days ahead if struggles occur.

[The Wise One]

 

We have to let prospects fail like Atlanta did with Smoltz and Galvine.  Communication is the key.  Let kids know what they are up against.  Reemphasize the better days ahead if struggles occur.

Glavine and Smoltz came up when Atlanta was one of the worst teams known to man. You can have the 1/2 year growing pains like they did because it cost the team nothing. The Twins last year IIRC were flirting on the fringes of wild cards. Try them out and let them fail as a way to success.  You can have the mess that was Aaron Hicks.  Adam Johnson was supposed to be can't miss. Tried  and let him fail. Eddie Bane failed young. What good did that do him?  Is Berios  Smoltz or Bane?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Are you sure there is zero evidence?

Doesn't give you a little pause that no team, across all spectrums of being progressive and/or statistically driven, will push significant innings increases in young pitchers?

I suspect very strongly there is some information and evidence out there even if it isn't readily available in the public domain.

And even if not, we will never conclusively know because no team will take that risk on a significant enough sample of young arms. So citing "no evidence" is meaningless.

 

I actually posted studies about this a few months ago on this board. It's a myth according to the analysis that is publicly available. As for why no teams do it? Conservatism. It's why NFL coaches make bad decisions every week, if they "gamble" against convention, and it doesn't work, they are fired. If they do what everyone else does, they can't be second guessed.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Second-guessing the Twins is probably fine with everyone.  What bothers me, at least, is the insistence that the criticism is clear/obvious (or likely as you put it), and the exasperated tone that comes with it.   The decision to not bring up Berrios for even one start is complicated in terms of near future returns (winning that game/roster flexibility) and long term prospects for the player, both in financial and player development terms.  In my opinion the complexity of the decision combined with our lack of first hand knowledge undercuts how sure any poster can be about second-guessing that decision.    It's just like your opinion on how clear an issue is or how obviously likely something is, dude.

 

That's fair, I was discussing who was likely to be better in that start, for this year. That should be clear from my posts, that I don't think they did everything last year to win last year. The decision, if you care more about the future, is more complex. I'd like to see Ryan care about the present at some point.

[Liquidator]

 

Glavine and Smoltz came up when Atlanta was one of the worst teams known to man. You can have the 1/2 year growing pains like they did because it cost the team nothing. The Twins last year IIRC were flirting on the fringes of wild cards. Try them out and let them fail as a way to success.  You can have the mess that was Aaron Hicks.  Adam Johnson was supposed to be can't miss. Tried  and let him fail. Eddie Bane failed young. What good did that do him?  Is Berios  Smoltz or Bane?

Fringe is not my goal.  I want continued excellence.  Sometimes you have to take 1 step back to take __ steps forward.  How many divisional championships did Atlanta win in a row once Smoltz (HOF) and Glavine (HOF) figured it out? 1991 to 2005

 

Big picture

[howieramone2]

 

The fans deserved Berrios. Plain and simple. TR claimed he was doing the right thing for the "kid" by sending him home in early Sept. But its clear he was acting on behalf of the owner for strictly financial reasons. Its plain to see that Berrios is a better pitcher RIGHT NOW than anyone they sent out for a start last season.

Mano to mano, Duffey beat him out.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Mano to mano, Duffey beat him out.

 

They fought hand to hand combat?

[tobi0040]

 

They fought hand to hand combat?

 

Yes. 

 

Duffey knows Karate and used The Crane.

[drjim]

 

I actually posted studies about this a few months ago on this board. It's a myth according to the analysis that is publicly available. As for why no teams do it? Conservatism. It's why NFL coaches make bad decisions every week, if they "gamble" against convention, and it doesn't work, they are fired. If they do what everyone else does, they can't be second guessed.

 

Is this referring to the Baseball Prospectus article dealing with the Verducci Effect or a different one? Because that study didn't really address this specific situation, and the little bit that it did was at best inconclusive. Verducci Effect is pretty nonsensical, but it is also an extremely rough theory that looks at pretty basic parameters and looks for only one outcome. This is a much more complex situation.

 

And while many teams are certainly conservative, I would expect that there would be at least a couple front offices secure enough to attempt something like this if they truly believed there was zero evidence of the impact of a large jump in innings as a young pitcher broke into the majors. This is different than doing in game decisions by the book, this is a long term plan and impact.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Three other teams were in similar situations (young pitcher ready and team competing) and two of them, Pitt and Tampa, did the same thing as the Twins, Houston was more aggressive.

What about the Yankees and Severino?

 

Also, while there are some similarities with Glasnow and Snell, there are some key differences too.  Neither pitched in AA until 2015, with Snell actually beginning the 2015 season repeating high-A and Glasnow missing over a month of action early in the year.  Both pitched fewer innings than Berrios in 2014 too, by 2-3 starts for Glasnow and probably a month of action for Snell.  Snell in particular came out of nowhere a bit in 2015, not ranking on any preseason top 100 lists according to B-Ref.  Both showed Meyer-esque control issues at high-A in 2014 too (over 4 BB/9).

 

In terms of experience and arguably refinement, Berrios was ahead of them when the season began, and did nothing to change that relative ranking during the 2015 season.  So it's not really fair to use them as a yardstick to justify Berrios' placement at the end of the season.

 

And in team context, the Rays and Pirates both had better pitching staffs than the Twins, particularly in terms of top-end talent in both the rotation and bullpen.  They had less to gain from a prospect addition than the Twins -- even if those pitchers performed well, it's not clear there was an opportunity to even crack the top 2-3 in those pens and rotations.  Meanwhile, multiple pitchers (Duffey, Jepsen, and May) were able to crack the top spots in our pen and rotation over the final two months.  Even with a less than dominant debut performance, Berrios could have easily been one of our first options to start or enter a critical win-or-go-home, tiebreaker, or playoff game 1.

 

Also, the Pirates pretty much had their playoff spot locked up at the trade deadline, giving them less incentive to make a big push.  And the Rays were further behind the Twins, were actually sellers at the deadline, and rank notably behind the Twins in terms of revenue, all giving them more incentive to look forward to 2016.