Fangraphs on Gibson

[Mike Sixel]

There is a nice article about Kyle Gibson on Fangraphs today...

 

READ: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-unusually-compelling-kyle-gibson-just-a-tweak-away/

[Parker Hageman]

It's certainly a good read and Fangraphs' August Faberstrom is a very good writer/must follow on Twitter.

 

That being said, I think the post missed a key element to Gibson's success and development in 2015. In spring, Gibson (along with some of the other pitchers) discussed the ideas that Neil Allen had with his changeup. It wasn't just throwing it more it was sequencing it in the right way --- I wrote about the results of that in July: http://twinsdaily.com/_/minnesota-twins-news/minnesota-twins/the-secret-behind-twins-pitching-success-r3906.

 

In short, Twins pitchers were encouraged to throw a changeup down in the zone and if that didn't record and out, they would hammer that portion of the zone again with another pitch. This was born from something the Rays had studied the hell out of in their front office and implemented in their system. For the Twins' pitchers, this led to a lot of weak contact and a .211 average on pitches after throwing the changeup (one of the lowest BA's in the league). 

[Vanimal46]

The article certainly gets me to appreciate Gibson more in the rotation. Let's hope he can find a way to get more strikeouts and build his way up to being a front line starter. Figures that Suzuki did more harm than good with our rotation and his pitch framing abilities.... 

[Oldgoat_MN]

I would invite the folks clamoring to trade Gibson to read this article.

 

Young, inexpensive (comparatively) and getting better. 

Let's keep him and see if Fagerstrom is a prophet.

[gunnarthor]

Nice article.  I admit, I don't care that much about strike outs but if you take out April, I think he was pretty close to league average.  

 

It seems like he got a ton of ground outs with two strikes but I don't know how to compare that to the rest of the league.  But my guess is that he used his sinker in two-strike counts a lot more than his slider.

[Loosey]

 

Nice article.  I admit, I don't care that much about strike outs but if you take out April, I think he was pretty close to league average.  

 

It seems like he got a ton of ground outs with two strikes but I don't know how to compare that to the rest of the league.  But my guess is that he used his sinker in two-strike counts a lot more than his slider.

I personally don't care about strikeouts in regards to Kyle Gibson.  For others I think it matters more.  I personally would rather see him throw 4 pitches per batter and have them tap something to the infielder than have to work a 5 - 7 pitch at bat and get the strike out.  But the article is encouraging in the fact that maybe he could turn into a top line guy if some of those whiffs start coming with 2 strikes. 

[nicksaviking]

Thank you Fangraphs. I said last year that Gibson has to start using his superior slider, not his sinker in two strike counts. I was saying this after looking at Fangraphs of course.

I think this still stems from approach. Didn't we have an interview with Glen Perkins last year where he detailed a conversation with Ginson, in which Gibson was of the archaic opinion that it's better to let the batters put the ball in play?

Edit: Found it. It was actually an interview with Gibson, and it was for Fangraphs:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/kyle-gibson-on-pitching-to-contact/

“I have this debate with Glen quite a bit: How effective an out on two or three pitches is as opposed to a strikeout. For me, a soft ground ball is just as effective if it’s within the first two or three pitches. If I’m able to keep my hard contact rate low, ground balls are almost automatic outs for me."

 

Almost an automatic out is not the same as an automatic out. Automatic outs are better, and almost automatic is a bit of hyperbole when Fangraphs also shows that only 16.3% of all types of his hits are classified as "Soft".

“When hitters puts balls in play, they’re going to get a hit sooner or later. But if I get five ground balls in a row, I’m more than likely going to get out of the inning. Offensive numbers will tell you that. If they only get a hit three out of every ten times they put the ball in play, that’s less than two out of five, so I like my chances.”

 

Yes, allowing batters to put the ball in play will mean they will gets hits sooner or later. They'll never get a hit, error, sac fly or move a runner over with a strikeout.

Fangraphs should have checked their archives. While not a definitive answer, this is a pretty big clue that Gibson's lack of strikeouts is unfortunately by design.

 

Throw the dang slider when there's two strikes.

[gunnarthor]

If Gibson's more comfortable with his sinker, throw the sinker.  He's a good pitcher.  Brad Radke wasn't a bad pitcher b/c he had low strike out totals.  He was still a great pitcher.  

 

A second concern, don't the Twins limit the amount of sliders their pitchers can throw?

[Thrylos]

 

.  Brad Radke wasn't a bad pitcher b/c he had low strike out totals.  He was still a great pitcher. 

 

"Great" = perennial All Star and a few Cy Young awards and borderline Hall of Famer.   Radke appeared in one All Star game, the highest finish in a CY Award vote was third and he had a career 4.22 ERA/4.24 FIP.   That's Scott Baker territory (4.26 ERA/4.06 FIP),  Radke's teammate Rick Reed was an All-Star twice and had a career 4.03 ERA/4.21 FIP and was very similar pitcher to Radke as far as balls and strikes went.  Was he a great pitcher?   All three mentioned were above average pitchers in general, with some average and below average seasons thrown in.  Because Radke was the best pitcher in a series of horrible teams, this does not make him "great" by any means.

 

I hope that Gibson will be better than all the 3 aforementioned former Twins

[Don Walcott]

It seems to me that what matters about strikeouts is when you get them.  With bases empty, it really doesn't matter whether you get a strikeout or another type of out.  With men on base, unless you're getting a double play, it makes a difference.  If you have a guy on third and less than two outs, it definitely makes a difference. 

 

I'm fine with Gibson's approach to try to keep his pitch count down, get outs on batted balls, and stay in games longer.  However, according to the article, Gibson may be able to add timely strikeouts to his arsenal.  According to the article, we have good reason to be optimistic about Gibson.  If he can develop into a right-handed version of Keuchel, we'd all be very happy.

[gunnarthor]

 

"Great" = perennial All Star and a few Cy Young awards and borderline Hall of Famer.   Radke appeared in one All Star game, the highest finish in a CY Award vote was third and he had a career 4.22 ERA/4.24 FIP.   That's Scott Baker territory (4.26 ERA/4.06 FIP),  Radke's teammate Rick Reed was an All-Star twice and had a career 4.03 ERA/4.21 FIP and was very similar pitcher to Radke as far as balls and strikes went.  Was he a great pitcher?   All three mentioned were above average pitchers in general, with some average and below average seasons thrown in.  Because Radke was the best pitcher in a series of horrible teams, this does not make him "great" by any means.

 

I hope that Gibson will be better than all the 3 aforementioned former Twins

fip/era alone seems a pretty poor way of judging a pitcher.  Radke's career WAR was 10 WAR higher than Reed and Baker's combined. 

 

Radke had more 4 WAR seasons than Cliff Lee, had twice as many 4 WAR seasons as Andy Peditte and had as many 6 WAR seasons as John Lackey and Josh Beckett combined.

 

Radke finished top 10 in pWAR 6x - the same number of times as Glavine and King Felix.  Radke was massively underrated b/c his best seasons happened to be on a really crappy team during an insanely high offensive era and because he wasn't a strike out pitcher.  But he was a great pitcher. Kyle Gibson's 2015 would slot in as Radke's 8th best season.

[jimmer]

Radke had a career ERA+ of 113 and Glavine 118.  The idea that Glavine was a first ballot, slam dunk Hall of Famer while Radke fell off the ballot completely after one vote stems from judging pitchers on win totals, and Atlanta's 'Big Three' narrative.  I might argue Radke was every bit the pitcher Glavine was, especially when you consider how much Glavine was helped by getting an extra 3 inches on each side of the plate.

[nicksaviking]

If Gibson's more comfortable with his sinker, throw the sinker. He's a good pitcher. Brad Radke wasn't a bad pitcher b/c he had low strike out totals. He was still a great pitcher.

 

A second concern, don't the Twins limit the amount of sliders their pitchers can throw?

He would probably also be more comfortable throwing a 70 MPH meatball. His slider is better than his sinker. If he doesn't want to increase the slider usage due to injury concerns, that's his prerogative. He can still use it more efficiently, that is in two strike counts, use the sinker for early in the at bats.

 

Great pitchers with low strikeout totals are the exception, not the rule. The majority of great pitchers in this era miss a lot of bats. If you have the ability to strike guys out, you should, it takes all luck, chance, fate or whatever people wish to call it out of the equation.

[Thrylos]

 

fip/era alone seems a pretty poor way of judging a pitcher.  Radke's career WAR was 10 WAR higher than Reed and Baker's combined. 

 

Radke had more 4 WAR seasons than Cliff Lee, had twice as many 4 WAR seasons as Andy Peditte and had as many 6 WAR seasons as John Lackey and Josh Beckett combined.

 

Radke finished top 10 in pWAR 6x - the same number of times as Glavine and King Felix.  Radke was massively underrated b/c his best seasons happened to be on a really crappy team during an insanely high offensive era and because he wasn't a strike out pitcher.  But he was a great pitcher. Kyle Gibson's 2015 would slot in as Radke's 8th best season.

 

The WAR argument.  Here is Radke's career WAR, and that of some of his contemporaries.  Along with where I would draw the lines of "Great", "Very Good" and "Above Average".  IMHO, Radke belong in the above average group.   You might call everyone from that group and up "great", but I don't...

 

 

Radke: 38.7

 

 

Mike Mussina 82.2
Kevin Brown 76.6

Andy Pettite 68.9

Roy Halladay 65.2

-------------

Javier Vazquez 54
Chuck Finley 56.9
Mark Buehrle 52
Roy Oswalt 52.5

Mark Langston: 49.2
Kevin Millwood 46.1
Jamie Moyer 48.2
Bartolo Colon 47.9

-----------------

Kevin Tapani 37.4
Livan Hernandez 34.5
Jon Lieber 36.9

 

 

[dougd]

Matthew Trueblood had an article three weeks ago with a similar theme: "Kyle Gibson's Encouraging Comp, and Kyle Gibson's Really Encouraging Comp"

 

 

 http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=28150

 

One point of emphasis is shown in this quote: "In The Bill James Handbook 2016, Baseball Info Solutions provides an analysis of pitchers’ ability to use the edges of the strike zone. They put each pitch thrown into one of three bins: clearly outside the zone, on the edge, or in the middle of the zone. Among pitchers who threw at least 2,500 pitches last season (the only ones in the Handbook’s chart), only three pitchers had at least 34 percent of their pitches binned as clearly outside the zone and less than 25 percent of them binned as being in the middle of the zone: Liriano, Gibson, and Keuchel."

[gunnarthor]

 

The WAR argument.  Here is Radke's career WAR, and that of some of his contemporaries.  Along with where I would draw the lines of "Great", "Very Good" and "Above Average".  IMHO, Radke belong in the above average group.   You might call everyone from that group and up "great", but I don't...

 

 

Radke: 38.7

 

 

Mike Mussina 82.2
Kevin Brown 76.6

Andy Pettite 68.9

Roy Halladay 65.2

-------------

Javier Vazquez 54
Chuck Finley 56.9
Mark Buehrle 52
Roy Oswalt 52.5

Mark Langston: 49.2
Kevin Millwood 46.1
Jamie Moyer 48.2
Bartolo Colon 47.9

-----------------

Kevin Tapani 37.4
Livan Hernandez 34.5
Jon Lieber 36.9

Sure, you can use the compiler argument but I've never been a fan of that.  It took Colon 18 seasons to match Radke's 12 season total.  Radke had more 4 WAR seasons than Pettitte and Vasquez, for instance.  Radke isn't in the top group but he fits pretty comfortably in with guys like Oswalt and ahead of several of those guys like Colon or Millwood. 

[Dantes929]

I have no problem classifying :Radke in the good rather than great category.     I would put Baker in that category as well.   I am ok if Gibson is good rather than great though I could probably go back and give evidence that Gibson is often great and so so the rest of the time.  That is ok also.    Average, slightly above average and good are all underrated IMo.

[old nurse]

 

The WAR argument.  Here is Radke's career WAR, and that of some of his contemporaries.  Along with where I would draw the lines of "Great", "Very Good" and "Above Average".  IMHO, Radke belong in the above average group.   You might call everyone from that group and up "great", but I don't...

 

 

Radke: 38.7

 

 

Mike Mussina 82.2
Kevin Brown 76.6

Andy Pettite 68.9

Roy Halladay 65.2

-------------

Javier Vazquez 54
Chuck Finley 56.9
Mark Buehrle 52
Roy Oswalt 52.5

Mark Langston: 49.2
Kevin Millwood 46.1
Jamie Moyer 48.2
Bartolo Colon 47.9

-----------------

Kevin Tapani 37.4
Livan Hernandez 34.5
Jon Lieber 36.9

Radke only pitched 13 years, unlike the other s on your list.  Single metrics do not seem to be the best way to establish mediocrity or greatness. Now, if you can find the formula for whip-wins so we could all find out over time who was the most effective pitcher, you might settle the argument

[markos]

 

Sure, you can use the compiler argument but I've never been a fan of that.  It took Colon 18 seasons to match Radke's 12 season total.  Radke had more 4 WAR seasons than Pettitte and Vasquez, for instance.  Radke isn't in the top group but he fits pretty comfortably in with guys like Oswalt and ahead of several of those guys like Colon or Millwood. 

I think Oswalt is definitely a step above Radke, but we can argue semantics all day.

 

But I do know that if the Twins want to be playoff contenders over the next few seasons, having Gibson put in multiple Radke-esque seasons (210+ innings, 115-120 ERA+, 5+ WAR) would be a big step in the right direction. 

[Mike Sixel]

Even if Gibson doesn't do slightly better (I think he will improve some), he's worth WAAAAAAY more than they are paying him right now. Trading him would be insane, w/o some huge overpay coming back.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Nice article.  I admit, I don't care that much about strike outs but if you take out April, I think he was pretty close to league average.

Remove April (only four starts) and his K/9 jumps 0.5 per 9, up to about 7.3.

[Vanimal46]

 

Even if Gibson doesn't do slightly better (I think he will improve some), he's worth WAAAAAAY more than they are paying him right now. Trading him would be insane, w/o some huge overpay coming back.

Agree. I think it would have been worth it when we were discussing on this site trading him and others to get Tulo. But those are the kinds of players the Twins should target to consider trading him, or a return similar to that. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The WAR argument.  Here is Radke's career WAR, and that of some of his contemporaries.  Along with where I would draw the lines of "Great", "Very Good" and "Above Average".  IMHO, Radke belong in the above average group.   You might call everyone from that group and up "great", but I don't...

 

 

Radke: 38.7

 

 

Mike Mussina 82.2
Kevin Brown 76.6

Andy Pettite 68.9

Roy Halladay 65.2

-------------

Javier Vazquez 54
Chuck Finley 56.9
Mark Buehrle 52
Roy Oswalt 52.5

Mark Langston: 49.2
Kevin Millwood 46.1
Jamie Moyer 48.2
Bartolo Colon 47.9

-----------------

Kevin Tapani 37.4
Livan Hernandez 34.5
Jon Lieber 36.9

While you're correct to rebut the claim Radke was a "great" pitcher, he was a *very good* pitcher. He logged that 38 WAR in only 2400 IP and retired at age 33.

 

By comparison, Mark Buerhle had 3200 IP. Most of those guys in the middle of your list pitched far more innings than Radke (Colon 2900 IP, Moyer 4000 IP, Finley 3200 IP, etc.).

 

Radke wasn't a dominant pitcher but he was the type of pitcher most playoff teams wouldn't mind having in the two slot and the type of pitcher playoff teams would love to have in the three slot.

 

Unfortunately, Brad's most productive years were wasted on the 90s Twins. From 1998-2000, Radke was worth a whopping 18 WAR. A 6 WAR per season average in his peak.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Radke had a career ERA+ of 113 and Glavine 118.  The idea that Glavine was a first ballot, slam dunk Hall of Famer while Radke fell off the ballot completely after one vote stems from judging pitchers on win totals, and Atlanta's 'Big Three' narrative.  I might argue Radke was every bit the pitcher Glavine was, especially when you consider how much Glavine was helped by getting an extra 3 inches on each side of the plate.

Glavine also pitched almost twice as long as Radke (4400 innings versus 2400).

 

I'm a big Radke booster, I think he was an ace from 1996-2000 and a solid starter after that, but let's not take things too far here.

[drjim]

Would anyone consider an extension for Gibson?

 

He is last year pre-arb this year, followed by the 3 arb years and free agency. 28 now, would be 32 when he hits free agency. Would probably do a 4 year deal with an option buying out the first free agent year. If he makes the leap would be a nice bargain going forward, if he stays solid it would be fine, if he regresses/gets hurt would be a loss.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Would anyone consider an extension for Gibson?

 

He is last year pre-arb this year, followed by the 3 arb years and free agency. 28 now, would be 32 when he hits free agency. Would probably do a 4 year deal with an option buying out the first free agent year. If he makes the leap would be a nice bargain going forward, if he stays solid it would be fine, if he regresses/gets hurt would be a loss.

I don't see why Gibson would take an option on his first FA year because nobody front-loads contracts as enticement (much to my chagrin).

[Otto von Ballpark]

Would anyone consider an extension for Gibson?

 

He is last year pre-arb this year, followed by the 3 arb years and free agency. 28 now, would be 32 when he hits free agency. Would probably do a 4 year deal with an option buying out the first free agent year. If he makes the leap would be a nice bargain going forward, if he stays solid it would be fine, if he regresses/gets hurt would be a loss.

FA option year would be nice but might be too late to get him as a nice bargain. The time for those extensions seems earlier (Span) rather than later (Dozier). The cost certainty aspect alone doesn't seem all that important given his profile and the starters we have around him.

[drjim]

 

FA option year would be nice but might be too late to get him as a nice bargain. The time for those extensions seems earlier (Span) rather than later (Dozier). The cost certainty aspect alone doesn't seem all that important given his profile and the starters we have around him.

 

I think pitchers are different than position players in this type of contract. A team taking on risk by guaranteeing 4 years can buy an option cheaper than it would for someone like Dozier.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think pitchers are different than position players in this type of contract. A team taking on risk by guaranteeing 4 years can buy an option cheaper than it would for someone like Dozier.

True.

[drjim]

 

FA option year would be nice but might be too late to get him as a nice bargain. The time for those extensions seems earlier (Span) rather than later (Dozier). The cost certainty aspect alone doesn't seem all that important given his profile and the starters we have around him.

 

They other thing I would add is that his TJ surgery and delayed debut make this a little bit of a unique case, could make it more of a discount than we might think.