Article: Twins Pitching Success is Not Sustainable

[drjim]

I referenced starting depth, how does losing Breslow change that? What scenario do you see impacting that?

Because there is no reliever depth at the moment. The next pitcher they would go down and get, no matter what role, would be one of those starters listed.

 

Again, it may change amd quickly, but not there yet.

[drjim]

Wasn't the conversation Levi referenced about starting pitching?

 

In any case, not dipping into depth, because then you'll have less depth, seems to me a poor reason not to make a move. In fact, it results in the exact same inaction as having zero depth, so what's the harm in using what you have?

What depth? Isn't that the concern.

 

And on the bigger point, is it even clear there is a worthwhile bat to grab right now?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Because there is no reliever depth at the moment. The next pitcher they would go down and get, no matter what role, would be one of those starters listed.

Again, it may change amd quickly, but not there yet.

 

I disagree that reliever depth and starter depth are the same or that one will affect the other.

 

Breslow, so far as I can see, should have no bearing on that.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Minor league depth who are healthy and ready to be called up right now, today:

 

Starter: Berrios

Reliever: Chargois

bench bat: Vargas (who btw is a first baseman, which Sano isn't)

[drjim]

Minor league depth who are healthy and ready to be called up right now, today:

 

Starter: Berrios

Reliever: Chargois

bench bat: Vargas (who btw is a first baseman, which Sano isn't)

Chargois is ready? He pitched his first game of the year yesterday.

[Trov]

This article I just read has another spin on this same subject.  Interesting to see how the same numbers can be spun for positive or negative.

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/78866/how-did-twins-fix-pitching-without-changing-rotation

 

What I liked about the linked article is it shows how the new system is working, and I feel it may be possible sustain some success over the long haul.  Do I expect same level as first couple weeks?  No, but I do think they will be much better than last year.  

 

I am a fan of analytics, but the argument that because the FIP is higher than the ERA means it will come back to earth to me is a flawed argument.  Just as saying a pitcher with a good FIP means he will have a good year.  The FIP is a decent thing to look at pitchers ability to strike out players, keep walks down, and keep ball in the park, but it does not count for the other 8 guys on the field, or even the pitchers ability to field himself. This takes out a huge part of the game.  I do agree a good FIP pitcher should have good numbers, but with the defense we put out last year at times even the best FIP pitchers would give up a ton of runs.  Sano and Grossman at times on the corner spots with Santana in CF no pitcher will do well with that OF.  

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Chargois is ready? He pitched his first game of the year yesterday.

What's the right number?

[drjim]

What's the right number?

>1

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

For the record I don't think Shaggy should be called up yet. But if he's healthy and pitching in AAA games, I don't see why he couldn't be since he would be taking the spot of the lowest guy anyway.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I am a fan of analytics, but the argument that because the FIP is higher than the ERA means it will come back to earth to me is a flawed argument.  Just as saying a pitcher with a good FIP means he will have a good year.  The FIP is a decent thing to look at pitchers ability to strike out players, keep walks down, and keep ball in the park, but it does not count for the other 8 guys on the field, or even the pitchers ability to field himself. This takes out a huge part of the game.  I do agree a good FIP pitcher should have good numbers, but with the defense we put out last year at times even the best FIP pitchers would give up a ton of runs.  Sano and Grossman at times on the corner spots with Santana in CF no pitcher will do well with that OF.  

Well, FIP assumes that all in the park contact is the same. And that works for most pitchers. Generally speaking, over a long enough period of time, there is enough consistency in the talent of MLB pitchers that all in the park contact normalizes somewhat and FIP becomes a reasonably good predictor of future success.

 

My problem with the usage of FIP is the assumption that it works for all pitchers. It doesn't. Like most predictive stats, there are outliers who routinely under- or over-perform their "talent" (for lack of a better word) and kinda break FIP. I also dislike the use of career FIP once a pitcher logs several seasons of play, especially if said pitcher splits their career between multiple teams and leagues (thereby diminishing the impact of good/bad team defense and park effect). At that point, ERA becomes a more accurate assessment of that pitcher's ability because it (mostly) tracks what actually happened, not what was supposed to happen.

 

But over- and under-performers of FIP appear to be relatively rare (Santiago and Nolasco are good examples of each), which means FIP is still a pretty useful tool, IMO. But, like most other metrics, it needs to be used correctly and it needs to be acknowledged that the metric doesn't work for every player 100% of the time.