The Twins can’t draft and develop starting pitching? Nobody else can either

[tlkriens]

Earlier this week the Star Tribune had a look at the Minnesota Twins inability to draft and develop starting pitching. No doubt that the Twins have struggled finding home grown starting pitching over the past decade, but it’s not like everyone one else in the league is passing them by. I used much of the same criteria the Star Tribune article did and looked a how other American League teams have done drafting and developing starting pitchers and the Twins are probably middle of the pack.

 

http://sportsloungeblog.tumblr.com/post/147493514370/the-twins-cant-draft-and-develop-starting

[jorgenswest]

Thanks. Great work.

 

The international market is another significant contributor to starting pitching.

 

In the central that might include Jose Quintana, Danny Salazar, Carlos Carrasco, Yordano Ventura, Edinson Volquez, Ervin Santana and Anibal Sanchez. I realize that those players did not necessarily start with their current team but it does give a scope of the importance of the international market on developing pitching. Not only are there one or two pitchers on each team, but there are many pitchers key to their rotations. I wonder if the Twins rank changes if international signings were considered.

[Badsmerf]

I think you have a sample size problem. Widen it out from 2000 to 2015. The twins still don't add any to that list, but i have a feeling many others will. If i had time i would help, but am at a funeral in Maryland thus weekend.

[Willihammer]

The period 2002-2012 was selected because that's what the Strib looked at. The Strib selected that period "because players in this range should be pitching in the majors today."

 

But I agree its a weird period to look at. For one thing, those drafts coincide with the Twins 6-and-9 years when their first round pick was in the 20s. Secondly, many players drafted after 2007 or so aren't even arb-eligible yet or aren't playing in the majors just because they were high school picks instead of college picks, etc. Thirdly, the period overlaps the end of the first TR administration and the entire BS era.

 

It is probably impossible to measure the efficacy of the Twins scouting/developing apparatus just using WAR values. Different ballparks, CBAs, owners, etc. and other confounding variables in recent Twins history. But if you're going to try an analysis I think you have to look at 1994-2007. That captures the entire TR administration where Radcliffe was scouting director. They were also in the Metrodome the entire time and Carl Pohlad was owner the entire time. And you avoid some of the pitfalls of the later drafts where many guys haven't broken into the majors yet. And I think you need to look at career WARs instead of drafting team-produced WARs because, theoretically anyway, that future value can be flipped for other assets. And if trade returns don't produce that is not necessarily a failure (or success) of scouting/developing.

 

From 1994-2007, using career WARs, Twins pitchers averaged the 12.7th pick. Of pitchers drafted in the first 10 rounds (using the top 10 as a cutoff because these are most likely to have signed, and because these would be the pitchers highest on the Twins draft boards), 75 pitchers produced 80.3 career WARs, or 1.07 WAR/pitcher on average, 10th among AL teams. So, that is more evidence supporting your conclusion that the Twins were middle of the pack.

 

Also in the Strib piece, Radcliffe implied they didn't draft enough pitchers in the 90s and 00s to overcome attrition. But actually they took 75 P's in the top 10 rounds of the 1994-2007 drafts which was slightly more than the average. That included 6 first rounders (9th) and 8 second rounders (t-2nd). So if the Twins were more hurt by attrition it wasn't because of lack of numbers.

[ashbury]

Earlier this week the Star Tribune had a look at the Minnesota Twins inability to draft and develop starting pitching. No doubt that the Twins have struggled finding home grown starting pitching over the past decade, but it’s not like everyone one else in the league is passing them by. I used much of the same criteria the Star Tribune article did and looked a how other American League teams have done drafting and developing starting pitchers and the Twins are probably middle of the pack.

 

http://sportsloungeblog.tumblr.com/post/147493514370/the-twins-cant-draft-and-develop-starting

Welcome. TD encourages cross-pollination of other blogs in this manner. We hope you'll take part in the discussions here, too.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

So if no one drafts and develops their own pitching, do these elite pitching staffs grow on trees? Does every team rely on other teams to identify the talent for them and they sign or trade for them? If everyone fails, then how is there quality disparity between teams? If everyone fails, why is scoring down and strikeouts up in mlb?

 

There's a logic missing or some other acquisition method, but I just don't get it. When LEN says the Twins suck at drafting and developing pitchers , I buy it because the results suck compared to all of MLB.

 

When the op says everyone else sucks too, then why do the results say otherwise? Luck? Poor free agent signing? How many free agent signees are on a typical rotation? I'll bet fewer than MN. Poor trades? You just don't see that many trades.

 

If the conclusion is everyone drafts and develops the same, then how does everyone else get quality pitching?

[SwainZag]

 

So if no one drafts and develops their own pitching, do these elite pitching staffs grow on trees? Does every team rely on other teams to identify the talent for them and they sign or trade for them? If everyone fails, then how is there quality disparity between teams? If everyone fails, why is scoring down and strikeouts up in mlb?

There's a logic missing or some other acquisition method, but I just don't get it. When LEN says the Twins suck at drafting and developing pitchers , I buy it because the results suck compared to all of MLB.

When the op says everyone else sucks too, then why do the results say otherwise? Luck? Poor free agent signing? How many free agent signees are on a typical rotation? I'll bet fewer than MN. Poor trades? You just don't see that many trades.

If the conclusion is everyone drafts and develops the same, then how does everyone else get quality pitching?

 

Did you read the blog posted?

[mikelink45]

JOSE BERRIOS CRACKS LAW'S TOP 50
The Twins gave up on Berrios fast this year after four rough outings in which he struggled to throw strikes, Keith Law writes. The right-hander should be in the majors as he has little to nothing left to learn at Triple-A. Law: Updated Top 50 prospects (Insider)
 

When we get a good one we don't know what to do with him.

[old nurse]

over the time period there have not been many organizations that were static, The people in charge change.

If anything the blog points out the need to be an adept trader as pitching talent gets traded young.

[howieramone2]

 

JOSE BERRIOS CRACKS LAW'S TOP 50
The Twins gave up on Berrios fast this year after four rough outings in which he struggled to throw strikes, Keith Law writes. The right-hander should be in the majors as he has little to nothing left to learn at Triple-A. Law: Updated Top 50 prospects (Insider)
 

When we get a good one we don't know what to do with him.

When Berrios came up, I recall reading he was the 5th youngest player in the majors. How is it, the 5th youngest player in all of MLB has little or nothing to learn in AAA? 

[Brandon]

Currently on mlb.com the Twins have 3 starting pitchers in the top 100 propects in all of baseball. We also have Duffy and Gibson as home grown starters plus we have other strong starting pitcher prospects so I'll wait a few years to see how these guys do to judge the Twins ability to draft and develop starting pitching

[jimmer]

 

Currently on mlb.com the Twins have 3 starting pitchers in the top 100 propects in all of baseball. We also have Duffy and Gibson as home grown starters plus we have other strong starting pitcher prospects so I'll wait a few years to see how these guys do to judge the Twins ability to draft and develop starting pitching

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.

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

[Thrylos]

If nobody can't draft and develop pitching, I guess there would not be any good pitchers around.

They are.

So that statement is pretty much false.

Someone develops them.  (Tampa for one).  They don't grow on trees

[tlkriens]

Another blog might be to look at how teams have acquired their starting pitchers via the draft/trade/international/free agency.

[The Wise One]

Trade, free agency, IFA as well as what you draft.  By looking at the numbers of starters over that time period for each team I would say that just looking at who is still on your team that you drafted is a small portion of how a staff is formed. Snell is the only current Ray pitcher to have been drafted by the team. The rest were traded to them. The Rays used 9 starters in their world series year. Kazmir, Garza, and Jackson were all traded to them. Looking at only a small slice is really limiting.  Garza had really good years with the  Rays and one right away after h was traded again. Was it because it was his prime, or because of the coaching?

[Badsmerf]

I bet Jack Goin would be all over this topic. Like thyros said, there are obviously teams that succeed more than others. Maybe look at success in trades, if drafting is inconclusive.

[jimmer]

Snell is not the only Rays pitcher drafted by the Rays and more than one of their pitchers have never been in another organization besides the Rays.

 

So at least four, off the top of my head.  Two starters, two relievers. Three of the four drafted, the other an amateur FA signing.

[walt-o-meal]

 

I think you have a sample size problem. Widen it out from 2000 to 2015. The twins still don't add any to that list, but i have a feeling many others will.

Yes.  And if that doesn't work, keep trying different samples until you find one that fits your expectations.  You can't lose.

[Badsmerf]

Yes.  And if that doesn't work, keep trying different samples until you find one that fits your expectations.  You can't lose.

Are you arguing that it won't, or just being condescending for the hell of it? I don't agree with the notion that twins are bad, but everyone else is bad too. It's illogical, and part of the rhetoric we've heard from the twins the past two decades.

[walt-o-meal]

 

Are you arguing that it won't, or just being condescending for the hell of it? I don't agree with the notion that twins are bad, but everyone else is bad too. It's illogical, and part of the rhetoric we've heard from the twins the past two decades.

Meant to be sarcastic, but not condescending.  Mea culpa.

My point was that this is the sort of thinking that can lead to "p-hacking".  We all likely appreciate the value of statistics.  We should appreciate its misuses as well.

[The Wise One]

 

Snell is not the only Rays pitcher drafted by the Rays and more than one of their pitchers have never been in another organization besides the Rays.

 

So at least four, off the top of my head.  Two starters, two relievers. Three of the four drafted, the other an amateur FA signing.

Oh, thousands of pardon me, mea culpas, I missed Matt Moore. They were talking of  starting pitchers, not relievers. Not relievers who were starters in the minors. Not relievers who fans think should be starters either. The article was about developing starting pitching and evaluating an organization on that basis. I was referring to only the current team Rays team and the World Series team.  So when you look at the current    starters,  for the Rays   Archer was drafted and signed by Cleveland, Odorizzi by Milwaukee,  Smyly by the Tigers,  Andiese by the Padres,  and Erasmo Rameres by the Mariners.  Of those last 5, only Smyly had experience at the major league level. If you are judging a team's starting pitching develop by only the players drafted and retained by the team you are really limiting yourself. The point made  by using  the current Rays team  as an example is that there are 4 pitchers they traded for with very limited or no major league experience as their starting pitchers is that they would have likely been impacted somewhat by the Rays coaching. . They could not start or be in the majors for their previous teams. Or they had very little mlb experience  for their previous stops. There would be influences from their current coaching staffs to get them to the position of major league starter.  That is why it is so limiting to look at only those drafted. Free agency is a different discussion as you have different kinds of free agents.   I don't think Boston should get much credit for developing Price. Chicago signed Jose Quintana who was described by his previous GM to be a fringy prospect. White Sox did something right by him that the Yankees and Mets did not.

As a fun exercise it is interesting to see who develops players well from cradle to grave, but baseball has long ago quit operating like that.

[ashbury]

 

It's all good, you're new so I was just curious on your intentions. If you were just being a dick I wouldn't be mad about it, but it's frowned upon by mods these days.

"These days" == "since the site was launched".

 

Walt doesn't post frequently but he's been with us a while. I didn't take his post the wrong way, but it's well to remember that satire doesn't always play well unless you are of Swiftian stature.

[Badsmerf]

"These days" == "since the site was launched".

 

Walt doesn't post frequently but he's been with us a while. I didn't take his post the wrong way, but it's well to remember that satire doesn't always play well unless you are of Swiftian stature.

How is a mundane like me suppose to know these things? If you guys gave me more power... i might abuse it a little so probably don't do that.

[HitInAPinch]

 

I bet Jack Goin would be all over this topic. Like thyros said, there are obviously teams that succeed more than others. Maybe look at success in trades, if drafting is inconclusive.

I'd be really curious to find out if he does track this and what kind of analysis would need to be done.

[bird]

 

Are you arguing that it won't, or just being condescending for the hell of it? I don't agree with the notion that twins are bad, but everyone else is bad too. It's illogical, and part of the rhetoric we've heard from the twins the past two decades.

 

 

You have never heard this type of rhetoric from the Twins, ever. On the other hand, this is the type of false accusatory rhetoric we've heard from TD contributors for the past decade.

[Otto von Ballpark]

You have never heard this type of rhetoric from the Twins, ever. On the other hand, this is the type of false accusatory rhetoric we've heard from TD contributors for the past decade.

From the article that inspired this post:

 

“It is something that has been an organizational void for a long time,” said Mike Radcliff, the Twins’ director of player personnel. “We try to put it in perspective. We did the research on other clubs, and not a lot of them are doing great.”

[Mike Sixel]

Is that the same article that was wrong factually on the number of pitchers drafted compared to other teams?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Is that the same article that was wrong factually on the number of pitchers drafted compared to other teams?

Where the Twins (Radcliffe) appeared to be wrong about the number of pitchers drafted by the Twins, yes.

 

“We did our research,” Radcliff said. “We didn’t select enough [pitchers]. We didn’t even give ourselves a chance in the ’90s and 2000s.

[mlhouse]

Well other teams can acquire high end pitching because they are:

 

1.  Willing to pay them and ;

 

2.  WIlling to give up prospects that other teams cannot develop to get established quality pitching.

 

 

The problem with the Twins is they are unwilling to pay top dollar to a star pitcher, they are unwilling to give up prosepcts for established quality players AND, they refuse to develop their prospects at the major league level.  

 

This means that our prospects wait in the minors even if they have demonstrated the mastery of minor league hitters.  Berrios has nothing more to prove in the minors.  He has demonstrated that he can get them out and pitch quality starts.  Yet the Twins just shoved him back to AAA.  

 

JT Chargois has demonstrated that he can strike out minor league hitters and save games at that level.  His ERA in AAA is under 1.50 and hist K/9 is 11.8.  Yet with some very mediocre arms in our bullpen he was given 2/3 of an inning at the major league level before being quickly sent back down.  

 

Trevor Hildenberger is only at AA, but his ERA is under 1.00 and his strikeout rate is 10.6/9.  Yet he sits.

 

I understand Berrios is pretty young, but both Chargois and Hildenberger are already 25 years old.  Both of them should be up on the major league roster.  I would hand the closer role to Chargois and the set up role to Hildenberger.  If Chargois does well then he can keep the job.  If Chargois does not do well, then I would switch their roles and see what happens.  If both do well then Hildenberger can be given some save situations moving forward to develop that depth in the bullpen.  

 

What is the worse that could happen?  THey both could fail  Yet, in a rebuilding process that is actually not the worse thing in the world.  If one or both fail, taht means we know that we do not have an established closer or setup prosepct and we either need to try different prospects in the role or when the time is appropriate find someone from outside the organization.

 

WAITING, WAITING, WAITING is the worse approach because some guys make it like Kent Hrbek, Gary Gaetti, Frank VIola, Tom Brunansky, and even Randy Bush.  Other do not like Jimmy Eisenreich, Brad Havens and Lenny Faedo.  But by moving quickly on the prospects, i.e. "rushing", means you identify the ones who fail and bring in the new prospects to replace them like Kirby Puckett and Greg Gagne.

 

[Jarends703]

One conclusion to draw from this research Is that drafting and developing starting pitching by just one team is extremely difficult and an unreliable method for building a major league rotation.  This is just one small slice of a much bigger issue--the best way to build a major league rotation for a team that limits its free agency spending.

 

I don't think it is illogical at all to say that nearly all teams struggle to develop their own pitching.  There are so many ways to acquire pitching talent and so many ways for the talent to progress. The OP only set out to examine a very small portion and discover a specific bit of knowledge.  I would like to see further analysis along the lines of how a staff is constructed in an effective way for small and mid-market clubs. 

 

Maybe the case is that it takes 2, 3, or 4 teams/coaching staffs to unlock a pitcher's potential, especially so for non-elite talent.  The accumulated knowledge and experience comes to fruition only after the original team has let go.  Like an Arcia situation but for pitchers.