Fangraphs (and other national publications) on the Twins

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Well my view of Santana appears to be quite a bit less than most, so it's not as big of an ask as it may appear. If they're unwilling to make those upgrades, then why are we wasting our time placing high expectations on this club anyway? They're not bringing home a WS trophy with Ervin Sanatna as one of their top arms. Not that I need to argue that, every report from the front office this off season appears to show they agree and are working on fixing the issue.

 

But I don't see how it's out of the question if the Twins truly are interested in Darvish. Sign Darvish and make a trade for another arm. They don't even have to go over their record payroll and they have the depth to trade away a few decent prospects.

I think this is setting a pretty lofty goal for one offseason and such moves should vault the Twins into the discussion of top 4-5 teams in baseball.

 

If you acquire two pitchers better than Santana, Ervin becomes your fourth-best starter before anyone throws a pitch (meaning that all the guys in the mix for fifth starter haven't surpassed him yet). Even if you think he's a league average or slightly better pitcher, that means the Twins have four guys at or above average with a pretty solid chance of adding a fifth guy with the same performance level at some point in the season (maybe even by Opening Day if Gibson turns out to be legit).

 

That's... a really good baseball team.

[drjim]

You're probably right that they won't, but I don't think it's much to ask. I don't expect Santana to be better than league average in 2018, and fear he could be significantly worse.

They'll need 2 more better than what he'll be, at a minimum, IMO.

I guess I see him as a solid #3. I only see 3 free agents (counting Otani) clearly better than him, and probably no pitchers better than him that are ultimately traded this offseason, at least not for a package the Twins can offer.

 

Don't really see a clear way for the Twins to add two.

[Mr. Brooks]

I think this is setting a pretty lofty goal for one offseason and such moves should vault the Twins into the discussion of top 4-5 teams in baseball.

 

If you acquire two pitchers better than Santana, Ervin becomes your fourth-best starter before anyone throws a pitch (meaning that all the guys in the mix for fifth starter haven't surpassed him yet). Even if you think he's a league average or slightly better pitcher, that means the Twins have four guys at or above average with a pretty solid chance of adding a fifth guy with the same performance level at some point in the season (maybe even by Opening Day if Gibson turns out to be legit).

 

That's... a really good baseball team.

Well yeah, that's the goal isn't it? If the point isn't to do whatever it takes to field "a really good baseball team", then what are these guys even here for?

[Mr. Brooks]

I think this is setting a pretty lofty goal for one offseason and such moves should vault the Twins into the discussion of top 4-5 teams in baseball.

 

If you acquire two pitchers better than Santana, Ervin becomes your fourth-best starter before anyone throws a pitch (meaning that all the guys in the mix for fifth starter haven't surpassed him yet). Even if you think he's a league average or slightly better pitcher, that means the Twins have four guys at or above average with a pretty solid chance of adding a fifth guy with the same performance level at some point in the season (maybe even by Opening Day if Gibson turns out to be legit).

 

That's... a really good baseball team.

Kyle Gibson has consistently shown he's 12% below league average through his prime years. He's suddenly going to become league average or better in his age 31 season? I honestly don't understand this yearly optimism with Gibson.

[Mr. Brooks]

I guess I see him as a solid #3. I only see 3 free agents (counting Otani) clearly better than him, and probably no pitchers better than him that are ultimately traded this offseason, at least not for a package the Twins can offer.

 

Don't really see a clear way for the Twins to add two.

I hope you're right about Santana. I don't share the faith.

[jimmer]

 

Kyle Gibson has consistently shown he's 12% below league average through his prime years. He's suddenly going to become league average or better in his age 31 season? I honestly don't understand this yearly optimism with Gibson.

all of this and more.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Kyle Gibson has consistently shown he's 12% below league average through his prime years. He's suddenly going to become league average or better in his age 31 season? I honestly don't understand this yearly optimism with Gibson.

Gibson is one guy. There are 3-4 other guys who have the ability to post league average numbers.

 

For the record, I have absolutely no faith in Gibson, was merely using him as an example of a guy who has the ability to be not-awful.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Well yeah, that's the goal isn't it? If the point isn't to do whatever it takes to field "a really good baseball team", then what are these guys even here for?

Sure, it's the goal, but it's probably an unrealistic goal in a single offseason that isn't loaded with starting pitchers.

 

Get one guy better than Santana. Get one reliever that's legitimately good. That's the baseline from which to work.

 

If you achieve those two goals, pursue another good reliever and starting pitcher if they're available (a reliever should almost certainly still be available at that point).

 

I mean, look at the free agents available this winter. How many are better than Santana enough to matter? Darvish? And... Arrieta? Maybe?

 

Then you have another guy who gets to pick his team and isn't swayed by money because he's not going to get enough for it to really matter.

 

So three guys. The Twins will be lucky to get one of those guys.

[Mr. Brooks]

Sure, it's the goal, but it's probably an unrealistic goal in a single offseason that isn't loaded with starting pitchers.

 

Get one guy better than Santana. Get one reliever that's legitimately good. That's the baseline from which to work.

 

If you achieve those two goals, pursue another good reliever and starting pitcher if they're available (a reliever should almost certainly still be available at that point).

 

I mean, look at the free agents available this winter. How many are better than Santana enough to matter? Darvish? And... Arrieta? Maybe?

 

Then you have another guy who gets to pick his team and isn't swayed by money because he's not going to get enough for it to really matter.

 

So three guys. The Twins will be lucky to get one of those guys.

Well we are clearly way off each other in our evaluations of what 2018 is going to look like for Santana if you're only counting that many guys as better than him. I'll be happily surprised if he's league average.

[Thrylos]

 

Twins aren't adding two pitchers better than Santana this offseason.

 

If that happens, then they might or might not make the post-season again. 

 

On the other hand, I heard a little birdie or two saying that SP is a high priority, so they better add a couple arms better than Santana who will be competing with Gibson & Mejia for the #4 position in the rotation.

[drjim]

Well we are clearly way off each other in our evaluations of what 2018 is going to look like for Santana if you're only counting that many guys as better than him. I'll be happily surprised if he's league average.

You really are predicting a big fall for him. He was 13th in bwar and 37th in fwar for starters.

 

He could regress quite a bit and still be league average. Or he could get hurt of course.

[drjim]

If that happens, then they might or might not make the post-season again.

 

On the other hand, I heard a little birdie or two saying that SP is a high priority, so they better add a couple arms better than Santana who will be competing with Gibson & Mejia for the #4 position in the rotation.

There just aren't that many available options out there. Other teams want these types of pitchers too.

[nicksaviking]

I think this is setting a pretty lofty goal for one offseason and such moves should vault the Twins into the discussion of top 4-5 teams in baseball.

 

If you acquire two pitchers better than Santana, Ervin becomes your fourth-best starter before anyone throws a pitch (meaning that all the guys in the mix for fifth starter haven't surpassed him yet). Even if you think he's a league average or slightly better pitcher, that means the Twins have four guys at or above average with a pretty solid chance of adding a fifth guy with the same performance level at some point in the season (maybe even by Opening Day if Gibson turns out to be legit).

 

That's... a really good baseball team.

Well if you want to compete with Houston, Cleveland and Boston you're going to have to put together a really good baseball team. If the offense continues to hit but the Twins still sputter in mediocrity because all they did to improve the rotation is sign an Alex Cobb all while Nick Gordon and Stephen Gonsalves are buried by veterans or fail to meet rookie expectations, we're all going to crying about "half measures", "never going for it" and "cheap Pohlads" like we do every year.

 

This team has the payroll space and the prospect depth to make significant upgrades, the stars are rarely aligned in such a way for this team, don't squander it.

[Thrylos]

 

There just aren't that many available options out there. Other teams want these types of pitchers too.

 

There are plenty of available options out there.  One just has to be creative, esp. as far as trades are concerned.

[Mr. Brooks]

You really are predicting a big fall for him. He was 13th in bwar and 37th in fwar for starters.

 

He could regress quite a bit and still be league average. Or he could get hurt of course.

He had a 4.46 FIP last year, and is now a year older, and well into the age range where athletes stop being good. I am indeed predicting a very big regression.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

He had a 4.46 FIP last year, and is now a year older, and well into the age range where athletes stop being good. I am indeed predicting a very big regression.

That's fine but you realize that large of a drop is unlikely, right? Santana can fall quite a ways and still be league average. People scream about Santana's FIP as if it was some astronomical number last season. It was 4.46, which is right around the median FIP for the AL in 2017. That's well within the range of anomalous season-over-season swings and just 0.3 higher than his 2015 FIP.

 

FIP is a useful tool but if you're breaking down a performance into decimal points, it's not the be-all, end-all of pitching measurements. Last season, Santana's numbers were largely static. He walked and struck out hitters at a pace in line with his previous career numbers. His groundball rate stayed the same. Where he made improvements are blind spots in FIP: line drive rate and IFFB rate. But his FB rate jumped higher, which leads to more home runs, something FIP hates. Maybe he can continue that trend of generating more weak contact but allowing more flyballs. Maybe not. Maybe Santana "reverts" to a normal flyball rate and his IFFB and LD rates also revert to previous numbers... But that still gives you 2016 Santana, a FIP darling. It's not so clear as "FIP is right" because not all contact is the same, yet FIP treats it as such.

 

On top of all that, why should we assume FIP is right at all about a flyball pitcher playing in front of this Twins outfield?

 

If Ervin is healthy, he's likely to be a league average starter or better. Sure, he's getting older but he also appears to be one of those rubber-armed pitchers whose decline is always in question but never seems to arrive as suddenly or harshly as we expect.

 

Remove his suspension season and the guy hasn't pitched fewer than 175 innings since 2009. That's nearly a decade ago.

[nicksaviking]

 

If Ervin is healthy, he's likely to be a league average starter or better. Sure, he's getting older but he also appears to be one of those rubber-armed pitchers whose decline is always in question but never seems to arrive as suddenly or harshly as we expect.

 

 

 

I find it difficult to believe that a team who's #2 starter is merely league average will have a very realistic chance of beating Cle, Hou, Bos and NYY to make it to the World Series.

 

I stopped being satisfied with early-exit playoff appearances about 15 years ago, if that's the precedent this club is trying to re-establish then the Twins might as well fire everyone in the front office, trade all the players with value and start the rebuild all over again. Again. Because this team does not have the arms in the farm to become a real contender this year, next year or any year in the relative future.

[amjgt]

The Twins did have the best offense in the league in the 2nd half, mostly without Sano and mostly with young players.

 

That doesn't mean we can survive with crap pitching, but it does set the bar a little lower

[gunnarthor]

 

I find it difficult to believe that a team who's #2 starter is merely league average will have a very realistic chance of beating Cle, Hou, Bos and NYY to make it to the World Series.

 

I stopped being satisfied with early-exit playoff appearances about 15 years ago, if that's the precedent this club is trying to re-establish then the Twins might as well fire everyone in the front office, trade all the players with value and start the rebuild all over again. Again. Because this team does not have the arms in the farm to become a real contender this year, next year or any year in the relative future.

I had to turn on the AC after reading that Hot Take. Blayless would be proud.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I find it difficult to believe that a team who's #2 starter is merely league average will have a very realistic chance of beating Cle, Hou, Bos and NYY to make it to the World Series.

 

I stopped being satisfied with early-exit playoff appearances about 15 years ago, if that's the precedent this club is trying to re-establish then the Twins might as well fire everyone in the front office, trade all the players with value and start the rebuild all over again. Again. Because this team does not have the arms in the farm to become a real contender this year, next year or any year in the relative future.

I firmly believe Berrios will be better than Santana in 2018.

 

Add another guy in front of those two and Santana is suddenly third in the pecking order.

 

It's not a perfect scenario to have a guy like Santana as your third best option but it won't kill the team, either. If Santana is going to be something close to league average, you'd really want that guy fourth in your rotation (though that's not out of the question, either, given the Twins options in Gibson, May, Gonsalves, Mejia, et al).

[crapforks]

 

 ...they better add a couple arms better than Santana who will be competing with Gibson & Mejia for the #4 position in the rotation.

Call me crazy, but I don't think Santana will be in competition for the 4th spot in the rotation.

[bird]

 

Kyle Gibson has consistently shown he's 12% below league average through his prime years. He's suddenly going to become league average or better in his age 31 season? I honestly don't understand this yearly optimism with Gibson.

 

It's certainly understandable to be pessimistic about Gibson and to think his recent string of better performances was a fluke. Around TD, I think the "yearly optimism" has been countered with plenty of pessimism. 

 

What I do seem to recall is one credible observer in particular making the case that specific changes and adjustments made by Gibson were responsible for the turnaround. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another myself, but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility that the changes are real and that he might end up being a very serviceable backend starter.

[Mr. Brooks]

It's certainly understandable to be pessimistic about Gibson and to think his recent string of better performances was a fluke. Around TD, I think the "yearly optimism" has been countered with plenty of pessimism.

 

What I do seem to recall is one credible observer in particular making the case that specific changes and adjustments made by Gibson were responsible for the turnaround. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another myself, but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility that the changes are real and that he might end up being a very serviceable backend starter.

1) I don't think it's pessimistic to expect exactly what he's already consistently shown himself to be. I'm not predicting he'll be worse.

 

2) Every year I read about how he's figured it out now. Snapshots of a particular up or down, at this stage of a player's career, is far more likely to just be a normal up or down, than some kind of new trend.

 

3) He's already a serviceable back end starter. I was responding to a poster suggesting that he'll suddenly become league average or better. By definition that'd make him an average #3 starter.

 

4) Is it common for 30+ year olds to make sustainable adjustments that make them drastically better than their career standard? Because that's how much better he'd have to be. Drastically. I'd assume you could find a few outliers, but I'd also assume that it's extremely rare. Perhaps if he was 26 or 27, I'd be a bit more optimistic than I am at 30 years old.

[ashbury]

What I do seem to recall is one credible observer in particular making the case that specific changes and adjustments made by Gibson were responsible for the turnaround.

It's the nature of the game that pitchers and batters alike are always tinkering and adjusting. So (tying in with another comment) I'm sure that Gibson's string of success coincided with one specific change or another. The question will be whether future adjustments will be likewise successful, or whether that one particular change was a one-time blip. (Because of the constant flow of adjustments, sometimes analytic types use a shorthand of "luck" or "not-repeatable".)

[USAFChief]

It's certainly understandable to be pessimistic about Gibson and to think his recent string of better performances was a fluke. Around TD, I think the "yearly optimism" has been countered with plenty of pessimism. 

 

What I do seem to recall is one credible observer in particular making the case that specific changes and adjustments made by Gibson were responsible for the turnaround. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another myself, but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility that the changes are real and that he might end up being a very serviceable backend starter.

While I’m skeptical of Gibson, IMO there certainly is a chance of sustained improvement, due to what I believe was less emphasis on two seam and more emphasis on four seam fastball use, combined with more/better use of his slider.

 

Gibson, IMO, is exhibit A in the argument against “pitch to contact.”

[ashbury]

While I’m skeptical of Gibson, IMO there certainly is a chance of sustained improvement, due to what I believe was less emphasis on two seam and more emphasis on four seam fastball use, combined with more/better use of his slider.

 

Gibson, IMO, is exhibit A in the argument against “pitch to contact.”

Isn't the change in fastball grip the sort of "adjustment" that may help for a few starts, until the book on him changes? And isn't the slider only as good as his ability to locate it, which seems to come and go during a long season? His last three starts of the season, taken together, amount to the same old Gibby, in terms of results. I'm just not convinced he has turned any kind of corner.

[bird]

 

1) I don't think it's pessimistic to expect exactly what he's already consistently shown himself to be. I'm not predicting he'll be worse.

2) Every year I read about how he's figured it out now. Snapshots of a particular up or down, at this stage of a player's career, is far more likely to just be a normal up or down, than some kind of new trend.

3) He's already a serviceable back end starter. I was responding to a poster suggesting that he'll suddenly become league average or better. By definition that'd make him an average #3 starter.

4) Is it common for 30+ year olds to make sustainable adjustments that make them drastically better than their career standard? Because that's how much better he'd have to be. Drastically. I'd assume you could find a few outliers, but I'd also assume that it's extremely rare. Perhaps if he was 26 or 27, I'd be a bit more optimistic than I am at 30 years old.

 

 

We're aligned on pretty much all of this, except I'd argue that Gibson was in fact NOT a serviceable back end starter. If one believes the "adjustments" are not sustainable, then one would say he gave us temporary #3 performance. Not knowing squat myself about the sustainability of whatever it was that turned him into a very useful starter, I certainly hope they don't "count" on him per se.

 

I believe the article I read was from a Fangraphs guy. I can't find it, but maybe Mike or someone can. The guy went into some depth, as I recall, and I think it included the pitch selection stuff Chief is describing but went beyond that. Additionally, Gibson visited with the team's sports psychologist and his self-assessment was that this also had a positive impact on his late-season turnaround. So, yes, we've heard a lot of comments over time about how this is the year Gibson takes a stride forward, but I don't recall any of those comments being backed by in-depth study like this guy provided. That said, he could be just another stat quack, I don't know.

 

My only point is that, while it's understandable and reasonable to be skeptical about the improvement, it's also quite reasonable to not dismiss the remote possibility that the changes are sustainable and that we could be pleasantly surprised that we have a reliable league-average pitcher on our hands. He just might be one of those outliers, who knows.

[big dog]

 

Isn't the change in fastball grip the sort of "adjustment" that may help for a few starts, until the book on him changes? And isn't the slider only as good as his ability to locate it, which seems to come and go during a long season? His last three starts of the season, taken together, amount to the same old Gibby, in terms of results. I'm just not convinced he has turned any kind of corner.

He definitely turned a corner.  Unfortunately, baseball is a carnival fun house.  You turn a corner, hitters adjust, and all of a sudden you hit another wall.  I don't think Gibson can turn often enough and quickly enough to finally get out of the fun house and on to the fair way.,

[ashbury]

He definitely turned a corner.  Unfortunately, baseball is a carnival fun house.  You turn a corner, hitters adjust, and all of a sudden you hit another wall.  I don't think Gibson can turn often enough and quickly enough to finally get out of the fun house and on to the fair way.,

http://www.fulltimebettingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/turning-a-corner.jpg

[Brock Beauchamp]

I have very little faith in Gibson's ability to hold sustained performance but I don't give much thought to his age, as he was drafted out of college, had TJ surgery, and generally hasn't pitched all that much for a guy approaching 30 years old.

 

What I do know is that the Twins' pitching staff is pretty bad and spending $4m-ish to see if Kyle's second half is for real borders on no-brainer territory. I'd rather see what Gibson has in him than most/all of the free agent reclamation projects available this winter, all of which will cost as much or more than Kyle.

 

Go find a better pitcher to front the rotation with Santana and Berrios and let Kyle (and May) get a shot at the back of the rotation. One of the available arms/prospects (Gonsalves, Romero, Mejia) should be able to step in if both those guys falter (which I assume will be the case with May, who should probably open the season as the long man on a contending team).