Neal: Home-Groan: Twins Trouble Drafting, Developing Starters

[markos]

 

It's not a fact that being bottom quartile makes you worse than the other 75%? What would be such a fact?

Sure, your statement is a fact, but it can still be misleading. For one, ERA is context dependent. So it may make more sense to use FIP instead of ERA since ERA includes defense. And it is probably better to use FIP-, as it adjusts for league and ballpark. Since the Twins are in the AL and played most of those seasons in a hitters park, they move up to 21st by FIP-. Still bad, but better than your number. So the next question is what is the absolute difference between the teams. Turns out that the difference between 21st and 14th (above-average!) is less than 2% (~0.1 FIP), which amounts to roughly 10 runs per season. So I don't think it is a huge stretch to include them in the middle chunk of the bell curve.

[markos]

 

So, give Cleveland and KC credit of one IFA apiece, Ventura and Carrasco. Because Salazar and Quintana were originally signed by other teams. 

I think you have Carrasco and Salazar switched. Carrasco came over in the Cliff Lee trade. And Kluber was drafted by the Padres, not the Indians.

[bird]

 

But isn't the major reason why Terry Ryan has his job that he's supposed to be a scouting and development guru? I mean, he's not going to play in the high end of the free agent pool, he's pretty bad in the mid-range of the free agent pool, and he hasn't distinguished himself with consistently doing well in trades. He's not aggressive in international free agency. If the best we can hope for in drafting and development is to miss the same players that most other teams miss, well, then, why bother?

EDIT: also, at the time Revere was drafted, he was considered a third round talent, but TR implied he knew better. If you're going to draft third round talent in the first round, it's fair to measure your success by the second and third round talent you missed.

 

 

 

No, the best you can hope for in drafting and development is to not miss too often when you get a shot at a premier prospect. They've had early selections in recent years. None of the pundits outside of some here on TD perhaps are criticizing the Twins regarding Berrios, Jay, and even Stewart for that matter, and are praising them for Gonsalves and a few others. 

 

And no, Terry Ryan didn't get his job because he's a scout by upbringing. He got it mainly because five dozen people are willing to work together under him, and because he listens to them. 

 

I'm not interested in having a discussion about what happened with a few position players, especially pre-Target Field economics. If you want to talk about whether Gibson was a good pick at #22, or Wimmers was not, we can swap a story here or there about a success here and a failure there. It's the draft. Throw a dart at any year, open up the file, and count the first-round pitching failures. The Twins haven't cornered the market on early-round disappointments.

[bird]

 

I think you have Carrasco and Salazar switched. Carrasco came over in the Cliff Lee trade. And Kluber was drafted by the Padres, not the Indians.

  ...my bad, but it strengthens the argument...Cleveland missed on Kluber four times too....idiots... 

[Guest]

No, the best you can hope for in drafting and development is to not miss too often when you get a shot at a premier prospect. They've had early selections in recent years. None of the pundits outside of some here on TD perhaps are criticizing the Twins regarding Berrios, Jay, and even Stewart for that matter, and are praising them for Gonsalves and a few others.

 

And no, Terry Ryan didn't get his job because he's a scout by upbringing. He got it mainly because five dozen people are willing to work together under him, and because he listens to them.

 

I'm not interested in having a discussion about what happened with a few position players, especially pre-Target Field economics. If you want to talk about whether Gibson was a good pick at #22, or Wimmers was not, we can swap a story here or there about a success here and a failure there. It's the draft. Throw a dart at any year, open up the file, and count the first-round pitching failures. The Twins haven't cornered the market on early-round disappointments.

Ok, using your parameters- Recent years, draft only, pitching only, high choices only: would you rather have Aaron Nola or Nick Gordon?

 

Btw, the mid-season top 100 prospects by Baseball America dropped Stewart, so it's not just a few people on TD for whom the bloom has come off that rose.

 

And I don't understand why you think they should get credit for drafting Gonsalves when you say they shouldn't be marked down for lower round players they missed.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Sale was picked 13th overall. Bauer was actually drafted by Arizona and traded to Cleveland.

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

 

I completely agree with this. The point of your minor league system is not to win the AA league or to have the best record. It is to groom players to become good major league players.

You can look out and see player after player who put up just good enough numbers to move up to the next level, without ever adjusting to what will hurt them in the majors. Guys like Eddie Rosario and Adam Walker are prime examples. Strike zone discipline was either never stressed or our coaches never got through to these guys.

Absolutely. Certain traits and skills translate up, and some others do not. HOW, one is succeeding matters, not just simple and easy to understand statistics. Contact, a good approach, and power play up; as does velocity and stuff. 

[Brandon]

We have 3 starting pitchers in mlb.coms top 100 prospects. Let that sink in for a minute. Plus Gibson and Duffy are already up. We still have Wheeler, Felix, Stewart and more on top of that

[Mike Sixel]

 

Worse at what? FA signings? Trades? I remain unconvinced that they are poorer at drafting and developing. The quantity argument has massive holes in it. Their main failure has been front line starters.

 

Someone said earlier that the Twins have drafted and developed more poorly than their AL Central counterparts. Really? First, exclude Sale, Verlander, Bauer, and Rodon. All top 5 selections I think. The Twins drafted after those players were taken. Everyone missed on Kluber. They all missed four times, except the Indians. They only missed on him three times. So, give Cleveland and KC credit of one IFA apiece, Ventura and Carrasco. Because Salazar and Quintana were originally signed by other teams. And there you pretty much have it. Not better, not worse at building their own. Just clearly worse at constructing a pitching staff using all other available avenues, which I think pretty much every one of us sees as having been a problem for a long long time.

 

So, outcomes isn't how to measure results? They are one of the 5 worst teams in starters' ERA for the last 26 years. If that isn't a measure of their relative success at developing pitching, I don't know what is.

 

How would you suggest we judge their success at developing pitching, if not by ERA? WAR? xFIP? strikeouts per nine?

 

What measure would you use to say "these guys are good at developing pitching"?

[bird]

 

So, outcomes isn't how to measure results? They are one of the 5 worst teams in starters' ERA for the last 26 years. If that isn't a measure of their relative success at developing pitching, I don't know what is.

 

How would you suggest we judge their success at developing pitching, if not by ERA? WAR? xFIP? strikeouts per nine?

 

What measure would you use to say "these guys are good at developing pitching"?

 

 

 

But don't confuse a discussion about causes with laments about results, Mike. We all know what the results have been. And no one is suggesting the bad ERA is due to unlucky wind gusts at Metrop[olitan Stadium, right? Specifically, I  have simply been questioning how much any true incompetence at drafting and developing front line starting pitching factors in on the results.

 

 

[jimmer]

 

So, outcomes isn't how to measure results? They are one of the 5 worst teams in starters' ERA for the last 26 years. If that isn't a measure of their relative success at developing pitching, I don't know what is.

 

How would you suggest we judge their success at developing pitching, if not by ERA? WAR? xFIP? strikeouts per nine?

 

What measure would you use to say "these guys are good at developing pitching"?

There HAS to be a way to blame Bill Smith! :-)

[bird]

 

Sale was picked 13th overall. Bauer was actually drafted by Arizona and traded to Cleveland.

 

 

Were either available for the Twins to draft?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Were either available for the Twins to draft?

I think you said they were top 5 picks by AL Central teams, I was just correcting that.

[bird]

 

Ok, using your parameters- Recent years, draft only, pitching only, high choices only: would you rather have Aaron Nola or Nick Gordon?

Btw, the mid-season top 100 prospects by Baseball America dropped Stewart, so it's not just a few people on TD for whom the bloom has come off that rose.

And I don't understand why you think they should get credit for drafting Gonsalves when you say they shouldn't be marked down for lower round players they missed.

 

I don't have an opinion about Nola versus Gordon. I'll leave that to all the experts and wait until a verdict is actually possible, but I will say that Gordon is doing fine by all accounts. And give me a list of experts that thought Stewart was the wrong choice ? Or even a bad choice?

 

If we try hard enough, we can find some odd thing to prove they are a bunch of putzes. I'd label your examples here as odd things.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

So, outcomes isn't how to measure results? They are one of the 5 worst teams in starters' ERA for the last 26 years. If that isn't a measure of their relative success at developing pitching, I don't know what is.

 

How would you suggest we judge their success at developing pitching, if not by ERA? WAR? xFIP? strikeouts per nine?

 

What measure would you use to say "these guys are good at developing pitching"?

 

You do understand how much of a crap shoot the draft is, especially in the mid-late first round?  When people are ecstatic over getting 3 ML players in a class of 40, that should tell you something.  Look at the average WAR for a pick around say 22.  It's not high.  Yes, outcomes matter, but they are still context specific, and I often see outcomes listed as a criteria in a way that quite frankly every major league team would fail at.

 

That said, if you look at where the national pundits place it, it's not talent acquisition...  We seem to have (and have had over the last few years) plenty of talent in the system.  Development on the other hand.  I think there's some fire under that smoke...

[Mike Sixel]

 

You do understand how much of a crap shoot the draft is, especially in the mid-late first round?  When people are ecstatic over getting 3 ML players in a class of 40, that should tell you something.  Look at the average WAR for a pick around say 22.  It's not high.  Yes, outcomes matter, but they are still context specific, and I often see outcomes listed as a criteria in a way that quite frankly every major league team would fail at.

 

That said, if you look at where the national pundits place it, it's not talent acquisition...  We seem to have (and have had over the last few years) plenty of talent in the system.  Development on the other hand.  I think there's some fire under that smoke...

 

A crapshoot over 26 years? It is a crapshoot for EVERY team, right? Therefore, you'd expect luck to even out over 30 teams for 26 years, right, and for the noise to drop out......that's how large sample sizes work.

 

If we can't look at 26 years of outcomes, and draw conclusions, well, I guess we can never draw conclusions about the Twins' ability to acquire starting pitching.

[jimmer]

 

A crapshoot over 26 years? It is a crapshoot for EVERY team, right? Therefore, you'd expect luck to even out over 30 teams for 26 years, right, and for the noise to drop out......that's how large sample sizes work.

 

If we can't look at 26 years of outcomes, and draw conclusions, well, I guess we can never draw conclusions about the Twins' ability to acquire starting pitching.

I have to say, at this point I have to lean towards development being the issue, I really do (and really always have).  Don't walk people at any cost, emphasis inducing grounders (as opposed to saying, 'hey, striking out people is good way to get people out if you have that in your arsenal'), or basically, trying to make everyone Radke (and mostly failing at that). 

[markos]

 

A crapshoot over 26 years? It is a crapshoot for EVERY team, right? Therefore, you'd expect luck to even out over 30 teams for 26 years, right, and for the noise to drop out......that's how large sample sizes work.

 

If we can't look at 26 years of outcomes, and draw conclusions, well, I guess we can never draw conclusions about the Twins' ability to acquire starting pitching.

Again, I think ERA is a bad metric to use in this case. If you look at other pitching metrics (FIP-, WAR), then the Twins are still bad but not as bad. And further, the gap between them and the average team isn't as large. And I think if you look at the team as a whole, a different narrative can be drawn:

 

Looking from 1991-2016, using Fangraphs data, here is where the Twins rank:

Twins Pitching WAR: #19

Twins Starters WAR: #20

Twins Relievers WAR: #12

Twins Batters WAR: #24

 

Now lets look at the relative gaps between the Twins WAR value and the median team (using #13 to ignore the expansion teams...):

Twins Pitching WAR: -25 WAR
Twins Starters WAR: -33 WAR
Twins Relievers WAR: +6 WAR

Twins Batters WAR: -96 WAR

 

So over the past 25+ seasons, the Twins have been basically been just 1 Win below the median on the pitching side, but 4 Wins below on the batting side each year. 

 

Even if you tighten the window to 2001-2016, batting is still the larger problem (though the gap is smaller). Yet there doesn't seem to be the same consternation about the Twins ability to develop hitters, even though that has historically been more of a problem.

 

[Mike Sixel]

If we used every thread to discuss every problem, every post would be 100 paragraphs long, and unreadable. This thread is about pitching, so we are discussing pitching.

 

I get it, the Twins aren't bad at putting together a pitching staff. I don't agree. And, ERA tends to be a better judge of actual outcomes, over a LONG period, than FIP. If we don't want to discuss the actual number of runs given up as an indicator of success, over 26 years, that's fine. We won't agree on that.

[markos]

 

I get it, the Twins aren't bad at putting together a pitching staff. I don't agree. And, ERA tends to be a better judge of actual outcomes, over a LONG period, than FIP. If we don't want to discuss the actual number of runs given up as an indicator of success, over 26 years, that's fine. We won't agree on that.

Then you are going to be left defending some weird results. Like that the 9 best teams at developing pitching all just happen to be in the NL. And that the Yankees and A's must be equally good because they have identical ERAs, even though their park effects are incredibly different. And that the Red Sox, White Sox and Indians (all top-7 in pitcher WAR) are actually all below-average. The actual number of runs given up are dependent on ballpark, league and defense, which is why you get results like that when you rank teams by ERA.

 

I think we are mostly on the same side; it is just a question of degree. These my thoughts about the Twins and developing pitching: They are not good. They have done nothing to distinguish themselves as an elite team when it comes to pitching. However, they are in the muddled middle area with most of the league (by my metrics, they are closer to #7 than #30). And since they are in this middle area, it is very difficult for me to determine where the failing has occurred. Is it development issues? Draft issues? Free agent signing issues? Trade issues? Is it mainly due to resource restrictions during the Metrodome days? Preventable injuries? Unlucky injuries? Some combination of all of that? I don't think it has been a total system failure for 26 years. If forced to guess, during the 1995-2007 timeframe I think they were most significantly impacted by the payroll restrictions of the Metrodome era, which probably impacted a lot of draft decisions. And post-2008, I think (actually, I know!) they have fallen behind the player evaluation and valuation curve, which has impacted their player acquisition decisions with both trades and drafting. This is isolated only to pitching, but on the hitting/fielding side as well. I think that overall their pitcher development is okay - not elite by any means, but middle-of-the-road.

[Mike Sixel]

Fair argument.....very fair.

[jimmer]

From 1996 to now, Twins rotation is 10th out of 14 in WAR in the AL (only counting the teams with significant time in the AL at the time which excludes Brewers and the Astros).  21st in WAR (22nd in FIP) if extended to all of baseball.

 

I say we lay down the 'we were a poor club in the Metrodome' card along with the 'Bill Smith' card (or what I like to call, the double-whammy) and be done with this whole nonsense about poor player development, poor trades and poor FA pickups :-)

 

BTW, I'm pretty sure laying down those two cards in succession wins MLB's version of Dungeons and Dragons :-)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Then you are going to be left defending some weird results. Like that the 9 best teams at developing pitching all just happen to be in the NL. And that the Yankees and A's must be equally good because they have identical ERAs, even though their park effects are incredibly different. And that the Red Sox, White Sox and Indians (all top-7 in pitcher WAR) are actually all below-average. The actual number of runs given up are dependent on ballpark, league and defense, which is why you get results like that when you rank teams by ERA.

Wouldn't ERA- address most of those concerns?  League and park, definitely.

[bird]

 

I have to say, at this point I have to lean towards development being the issue, I really do (and really always have).  Don't walk people at any cost, emphasis inducing grounders (as opposed to saying, 'hey, striking out people is good way to get people out if you have that in your arsenal'), or basically, trying to make everyone Radke (and mostly failing at that). 

 

 

Do you think this stuff is still a problem? 

[jimmer]

 

Do you think this stuff is still a problem? 

Probably not, or at least I think they are trying to get away from cookie-cutting.  I still think they believe walks are a curse on our house, but besides that, no.

 

And that's good, because pitchers depending on the defense assembled on this team would be a mistake.:-)

[Linus]

This just in - Lindberg baby kidnapped! As much as I get annoyed with some of the obsessions of TD posters, it's still the best place for real baseball discussion by far.

[jimmer]

 

We have 3 starting pitchers in mlb.coms top 100 prospects. Let that sink in for a minute. Plus Gibson and Duffy are already up. We still have Wheeler, Felix, Stewart and more on top of that

Baseball America only has two in their top 100. I haven't seen or been able to find MLB dot com's mid-season 2016 list.  Have a link?

 

In any event, having three SPs in MLB dot com's is nothing new.

 

We had three starting pitchers in MLB dot com's Top 100 pre-2014.

 

We had the same three starting pitchers in MLB dot com's TOP 40 pre-2015 list.

 

Two of them fell off MLB dot com's pre-2016 Top 100 list and are not in the majors.