Current Pitching Staff

[stringer bell]

I had a little time on my hands, but noted that the Twins have cashiered Ramirez for Boshers and I thought, "gee, this is probably the best twelve guys we've had on the roster this year"--no injured Perkins or Hughes, no Jepsen, no Meyer, Berrios or Chargois and their poor auditions.  So I used Excel and put up the current staff's bareboned numbers--innings pitched, earned runs, and ERA.

 

The results:  Starters:    419 IP, 222 ER, 4.77 ERA.  Relievers:   227 IP, 85 ER, 3.37 ERA. Total active staff:   646 IP, 307 ER, 4.28 ERA.

 

Those results for the whole staff would put the Twins in 6th place overall in team ERA. I don't know what the numbers would look like for other teams if only their active pitchers were counted, but it gives me hope that some way better days are ahead. 

[ashbury]

You get better by getting rid of the guys who don't perform, and bringing in guys you hope will.

 

I'd caution that it can be at best two steps forward, one step back, due to Small Sample Size that even a half-season represents. Some of the guys who failed to perform will end up having decent second halves and give you some regret, and some of the guys you keep will mysteriously stop performing and give you different regret.

 

Nothing wrong with that. I'm just cautioning against taking the kind of calculation you performed too seriously as a measure of reality going forward.

[stringer bell]

 

You get better by getting rid of the guys who don't perform, and bringing in guys you hope will.

 

I'd caution that it can be at best two steps forward, one step back, due to Small Sample Size that even a half-season represents. Some of the guys who failed to perform will end up having decent second halves and give you some regret, and some of the guys you keep will mysteriously stop performing and give you different regret.

 

Nothing wrong with that. I'm just cautioning against taking the kind of calculation you performed too seriously as a measure of reality going forward.

Thanks John. Way to rain on my Positivity Parade!

[howieramone2]

 I heard last night, in the past 22 games, our starters ERA is 3.55. Our opportunity to lose 100 games, is slipping away.

[ashbury]

Thanks John. Way to rain on my Positivity Parade!

It's what Sabrmetricians DO.

 

_{^{/ I am not a very good one}}

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I don't know what the numbers would look like for other teams if only their active pitchers were counted

I think that's the salient point.  Logically, most teams should have a better "active pitchers only" ERA at this point in the season -- they've had almost 4 months to evaluate and drop/disable the worst performers.  It's even easier for the teams with the worst early pitching performances, like the Twins and Reds, as they have some of the worst performers to drop and likely are getting some regression to the mean too.

 

That's not to say we can't enjoy the improved performance too, especially in the pen where at least a couple names should stick in the next year's group.

 

Less encouraged by our current starters still posting such a high ERA... just eyeballing it, but a collective 4.77 ERA from our current starting rotation might still rank last in the league (the teams we'd "pass" by excluding Hughes, Dean, and Berrios have all dropped high ERA pitchers themselves too).

[wsnydes]

 

Thanks John. Way to rain on my Positivity Parade!

This should cheer you up a bit.

 

I first read the stats portion of your post and somehow read it as the relievers having 200+ more IP than that starters and I wanted to throw something at my computer screen.  Then I read it again and was pleasantly surprised.  

 

Is that more positive?

[jimmer]

 

It's what Sabrmetricians DO.

 

_{^{/ I am not a very good one}}

The also make Punto look better than most people thought he was, so take the good with the bad, I suppose.  it's up to you to figure out which is which :-)

[stringer bell]

 

I think that's the salient point.  Logically, most teams should have a better "active pitchers only" ERA at this point in the season -- they've had almost 4 months to evaluate and drop/disable the worst performers.  It's even easier for the teams with the worst early pitching performances, like the Twins and Reds, as they have some of the worst performers to drop and likely are getting some regression to the mean too.

 

That's not to say we can't enjoy the improved performance too, especially in the pen where at least a couple names should stick in the next year's group.

 

Less encouraged by our current starters still posting such a high ERA... just eyeballing it, but a collective 4.77 ERA from our current starting rotation might still rank last in the league (the teams we'd "pass" by excluding Hughes, Dean, and Berrios have all dropped high ERA pitchers themselves too).

Maybe not the Dodgers, since Kershaw is on the shelf, but I suppose so.

[Hrbek70]

Hiw much did it hurt the pitchers by not having Neil Allen around? Or were we throwing batting practice with him there too?

 

Either way, it is nice to see a resemblance of a pitching staff again. If TR hadn't brought so many bad relievers north, maybe the earlier months would have looked better. IMO it also helps the pitchers when they know they offense will put some runs on the board

[jorgenswest]

I would guess most teams have filtered out the poor performance and are better numerically. The exceptions would be the team's with the injured ace.

 

I don't think it mean's anything going forward. It is very possible that Jepsen will have a better career from the day the Twins released him than that of Bradon Kintzler or Fernando Abad or Buddy Boshers. We don't know what kinds of number Chargois and Berrios may have posted had they stayed in the majors, but I'd like to think they would make this pitching staff better today.

 

While the Twins are numerically better with the staff as composed today, I don't see how it means anything projecting for tomorrow.

[DocBauer]

I'm not going to pretend things are rosey when it comes to the Twins staff, but it has been much better of late. While there is a huge payoff of high quality SP and RP prospects just over the horizon...ETA 2018 with some arrivals in 2017...all is not lost in the here and now.

 

Santana is still solid. Occasionally really good. And there is nothing to indicate some imminent failure as some suggest. (Part of the reason I'm in favor of keeping him)

 

Gibson, now healthy, has been solid to quite good. He's shown the past two seasons what he's capable of. And there is still potential to be better. Berrios may or not be a stud from his next start on, but he has enormous potential. I like Duffey and except for a rough start early this year, he also is solid. The 5th spot is certainly up for grabs. Wheeler maybe, at least in the short term? Though I still maintain May should be there.

 

The pen has a trio of guys to stick. There are a number of guys, not just Chargois, who should be auditioning soon and have a chance. I believe FA will see a pickup or two in the offseason.

 

NOT a championship staff to be sure. But with a couple youngsters ready, or almost ready, and a couple moves, I feel the Twins are close to putting together a solid, competent staff.

[alarp33]

 

 

 

The results:  Starters:    419 IP, 222 ER, 4.77 ERA.  Relievers:   227 IP, 85 ER, 3.37 ERA. Total active staff:   646 IP, 307 ER, 4.28 ERA.

 

Those results for the whole staff would put the Twins in 6th place overall in team ERA. I don't know what the numbers would look like for other teams if only their active pitchers were counted, but it gives me hope that some way better days are ahead. 

 

 

I'm not sure where you got 6th from.  Nats, Cubs, Mets, Dodgers, Indians, Giants, Blue Jays, Astros, Cards, Marlins, Mariners all have Team ERA's under 4.  

 

After last night if your Innings/Runs we're correct, the active team now has a 4.40 ERA (adding in 13runs in 8 innings), good for a tie for 21st in the league... 

[stringer bell]

 

I'm not sure where you got 6th from.  Nats, Cubs, Mets, Dodgers, Indians, Giants, Blue Jays, Astros, Cards, Marlins, Mariners all have Team ERA's under 4.  

 

After last night if your Innings/Runs we're correct, the active team now has a 4.40 ERA (adding in 13runs in 8 innings), good for a tie for 21st in the league... 

That was 6th in the American League. I think it is hard to compare NL and AL when NL pitchers get to face pitchers 1-3 times per game. I did some further research and the 12-man staff of the Twins compared to actives in the other 14 teams would have been 11th out of 15 in team ERA (unofficial).

[Mike Sixel]

Well, if you go to Fangraphs....you can click on active roster....

 

The Twins are:

19th in WAR

27th in ERA

 

Among AL teams:

10th in WAR

Last in ERA

 

So, ya, I don't think this is a winning staff.....

[Mr. Brooks]

Was any further research necessary to tell us that the Twins have one of (if not THE) the worst pitching staffs in baseball?

[prouster]

 

I had a little time on my hands, but noted that the Twins have cashiered Ramirez for Boshers and I thought, "gee, this is probably the best twelve guys we've had on the roster this year"--no injured Perkins or Hughes, no Jepsen, no Meyer, Berrios or Chargois and their poor auditions.  So I used Excel and put up the current staff's bareboned numbers--innings pitched, earned runs, and ERA.

 

The results:  Starters:    419 IP, 222 ER, 4.77 ERA.  Relievers:   227 IP, 85 ER, 3.37 ERA. Total active staff:   646 IP, 307 ER, 4.28 ERA.

 

Those results for the whole staff would put the Twins in 6th place overall in team ERA. I don't know what the numbers would look like for other teams if only their active pitchers were counted, but it gives me hope that some way better days are ahead. 

 

Definitely a nice change of pace to see someone looking for positives about the Twins. I agree, it's encouraging to see the FO put out guys who have been performing well.

 

Of course, some of your analysis depends on certain assumptions that may not hold up over time. Someone pointed out the small sample size, which is related to the implicit point that players like Berrios and Chargois displayed their true talent levels in their short stints on the big club. Berrios likely isn't a 10+ ERA pitcher, nor should we expect to Chargois to post an ERA over 60 going forward (I personally can't stand that they sent him down after only an inning of work). Essentially, this comes down to whether you value inputs vs. outputs--"stuff" vs. results.

 

This is all to say, I agree that the current staff is the "best" we've seen all year, given the results. However, I think there are better pitchers who are not currently on the team, though they probably should be.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Well, if you go to Fangraphs....you can click on active roster....

 

The Twins are:

19th in WAR

27th in ERA

 

Among AL teams:

10th in WAR

Last in ERA

 

So, ya, I don't think this is a winning staff.....

Thanks for the tip!  You are correct, today the Twins "active roster" is last in the AL in ERA:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=al&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2016&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=1&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=15,a

 

Looks like we were 13th out of 15 teams in ERA entering play yesterday.

 

We are only second to last in adjusted ERA-, though -- the Angels park factor apparently pushes them below us.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Thanks for the tip!  You are correct, today the Twins "active roster" is last in the AL in ERA:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=al&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2016&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=1&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=15,a

 

Looks like we were 13th out of 15 teams in ERA entering play yesterday.

 

We are only second to last in adjusted ERA-, though -- the Angels park factor apparently pushes them below us.

 

Most of the time the internet makes this easy for us......

 

Ya, yesterday didn't help any.