Twins pitching piece to share

[biggentleben]

After some discussion with people around the game on what the Twins may do at pitching coach, I came into a very good discussion with someone in the Marlins org, who believes the Twins could bring in Kyle Snyder and he and Baldelli would be very willing to try new things with how pitchers are used in Minnesota. I had my own thoughts, and I was told that they aren't insane...check them out!

https://calltothepen.com/2018/11/02/minnesota-twins-new-pitching-trend-2019/ 

[sampleSizeOfOne]

Thanks for the post.

 

Would stacking also work better by pairing contrasting styles of pitching? Intriguing, at least.

[jorgenswest]

Does the stacking plan increase the likelihood of a 13th pitcher? An opener is available to pitch between “starts” and does not need to be the same reliever every time. Both pitchers in the stack will not be available in the few games after the start and likely need to be the same two when that spot in the rotation returns. That works with the large rosters of September. With a 25 man roster I think it limits flexibility to the point where a 13th pitcher becomes a fixture.

 

The trade off would probably be Tyler Austin. He is best suited to a role where his at bats are more limited against right handed pitching. A three man bench has space for a catcher, middle infielder and outfielder. There isn’t space for a bat. If Austin can be a regular than it could be a spot for a guy like Astudillo that gets sacrificed.

[old nurse]

the issue of third time through the order is usually not with the bottom half of the order. That would be why teams went with openers rather than stacking.

With stacking are the pitchers you are stacking treated as long relievers or starters? Twice through the order is 70 pitches. Too many for a long reliever, too few for a starter. If the primary gets 5 more batters that puts it closer to 95-100 pitches and 6 innings out of the primary,

To make stacking work you would need to commit to a rotation being stacked and having them pitch every 4th game.  That would be the only way you could get 160 or more innings out of your starters.  The drawback is you would need 8 of them, not 5. Most teams have trouble finding 3-4.  On the plus side would be a 4 man bullpen, If you have a great starter then it is every 4th day for 5 innings or 6 innings when they are lights out. .

[Riverbrian]

 

Does the stacking plan increase the likelihood of a 13th pitcher? An opener is available to pitch between “starts” and does not need to be the same reliever every time. Both pitchers in the stack will not be available in the few games after the start and likely need to be the same two when that spot in the rotation returns. That works with the large rosters of September. With a 25 man roster I think it limits flexibility to the point where a 13th pitcher becomes a fixture.

The trade off would probably be Tyler Austin. He is best suited to a role where his at bats are more limited against right handed pitching. A three man bench has space for a catcher, middle infielder and outfielder. There isn’t space for a bat. If Austin can be a regular than it could be a spot for a guy like Astudillo that gets sacrificed.

 

I think 13 pitchers is an absolute necessity. 

 

If there are 13 pitchers on the roster... I don't believe a dedicated DH is possible. That will give you an extra catcher, middle IF, Corner IF and OF. 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

the issue of third time through the order is usually not with the bottom half of the order. That would be why teams went with openers rather than stacking.

With stacking are the pitchers you are stacking treated as long relievers or starters? Twice through the order is 70 pitches. Too many for a long reliever, too few for a starter. If the primary gets 5 more batters that puts it closer to 95-100 pitches and 6 innings out of the primary,

To make stacking work you would need to commit to a rotation being stacked and having them pitch every 4th game.  That would be the only way you could get 160 or more innings out of your starters.  The drawback is you would need 8 of them, not 5. Most teams have trouble finding 3-4.  On the plus side would be a 4 man bullpen, If you have a great starter then it is every 4th day for 5 innings or 6 innings when they are lights out. .

 

I think they have the opportunity to try multiple things. Traditional Starters, Openers, Stacking and Pure Bullpen games. 

 

It's quite possible that we will be saying goodbye to pre-packaged rotations of the past. 

[jorgenswest]

I think 13 pitchers is an absolute necessity. 

 

If there are 13 pitchers on the roster... I don't believe a dedicated DH is possible. That will give you an extra catcher, middle IF, Corner IF and OF.

 

Necessity for stacking or any model?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I think they have the opportunity to try multiple things. Traditional Starters, Openers, Stacking and Pure Bullpen games. 

 

It's quite possible that we will be saying goodbye to pre-packaged rotations of the past.

 

I respectfully disagree. (I may also disrespectfully agree. We'll see how this goes. )

 

I've been trying to figure out how to say this. Basically, I think if all of those alternative pitching models had been the norm in baseball for a hundred years, some clever team by now would have decided it was better to have a small number of really good pitchers who can pitching 6 to 9 innings every time, and then have a few extra guys to come in to finish the game if the first guy had to come out. In other words, starters and relievers. Other teams would have followed suit, and that's where we would be today, with starters and relievers, a rotation and a bullpen.

[nicksaviking]

I’m for being the first to try anything to give the Twins a competitive advantage.

 

Of course the downside to this plan is that it would significantly hamper Odorizzi’s shot at joining the 300 win club.

[nicksaviking]

I respectfully disagree. (I may also disrespectfully agree. We'll see how this goes. )

I've been trying to figure out how to say this. Basically, I think if all of those alternative pitching models had been the norm in baseball for a hundred years, some clever team by now would have decided it was better to have a small number of really good pitchers who can pitching 6 to 9 innings every time, and then have a few extra guys to come in to finish the game if the first guy had to come out.

Great, so all the Twins have to do is get five really good starters who can pitch 6-9 innings every start? Hasn’t that basically been the goal forever with the team always failing to meet that standard? If you read the proposal you’ll notice that Berros’ and Gibson’s innings weren’t impacted.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Great, so all the Twins have to do is get five really good starters who can pitch 6-9 innings every start? Hasn’t that basically been the goal forever with the team always failing to meet that standard? If you read the proposal you’ll notice that Berros’ and Gibson’s innings weren’t impacted.

I think there are costs or cons (pros and cons) that will come with experimenting with the pitchers. Some costs we can anticipate, like the roster constraints mentioned above.

 

My blueprint would be to do the traditional five starters though it does seem like the Twins are going to continue experimenting with a couple of those starter spots. Heck, I'm not a Pineda fan, but I would even prefer "start Pineda when he's heathy, call someone up when he's not" to having too many rotation spots given over to experimentation. Although having Kohl Stewart as a "primary" did show limited success.

[Vanimal46]

Stacking and openers don't excite me at all as strategies. It may help win a couple more games in the regular season, but it will get exposed in the post season.

 

Don't get lost in the weeds. Starting pitching is still very important in the game and wins championships.

[Winston Smith]

 

I think 13 pitchers is an absolute necessity. 

 

If there are 13 pitchers on the roster... I don't believe a dedicated DH is possible. That will give you an extra catcher, middle IF, Corner IF and OF. 

I disagree. If the bullpen is managed properly there shouldn't be a need for 8 relievers and it would give the Manager more FLEXABILITY if he has the extra bench player.

[Kelly Vance]

I think openers and stacking etc is just silly. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

 

 

[Riverbrian]

Necessity for stacking or any model?

Any model besides traditional 5 Man rotation... try to get 6 out of a starter and an inning here and there out of your bullpen.

 

Move away from that and I think you need the 13th guy always and I think we are moving away from that.

[nicksaviking]

I think openers and stacking etc is just silly. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

It looked broke to me.

 

How does anything ever improve without experimentation and those brave enough to try new things?

[USAFChief]

I respectfully disagree. (I may also disrespectfully agree. We'll see how this goes. )

 

I've been trying to figure out how to say this. Basically, I think if all of those alternative pitching models had been the norm in baseball for a hundred years, some clever team by now would have decided it was better to have a small number of really good pitchers who can pitching 6 to 9 innings every time, and then have a few extra guys to come in to finish the game if the first guy had to come out. In other words, starters and relievers. Other teams would have followed suit, and that's where we would be today, with starters and relievers, a rotation and a bullpen.

The problem with this is, some clever team already decided that 5 starters, instead of 4, works better...and everyone followed suit.

 

And before that, some clever team decided that three starters was too few...and everyone followed suit.

 

And before that, some clever team decided that one pitcher per game, who pitches the entire game come hell or high water, wasn't the best way to play the game...and everyone followed suit.

 

Pitching has been evolving since the second year of organized baseball. Just because everyone did it that way a couple years ago has never prevented experimentation. Not today, and not 100 years ago.

 

Pitchers pitch fewer innings. That's been a trend forever, and I dont see that changing. I think it's more likely we see roster expansion than a return to smaller staffs with 5 Traditional starters.

[Vanimal46]

It looked broke to me.

 

How does anything ever improve without experimentation and those brave enough to try new things?

Until the old method is broken. The Red Sox steam rolled through the league, and it wasn't because of stacking pitchers or using openers.

[Dave The Dastardly]

I'm all for experimenting. There's always room for improvement no matter what you're doing and the only way to find improvements is through experimenting. Some experiments will fail, some will fail miserably and some might actually turn out to be revolutionary. And obviously the least risky times for experimentation is when you've sucked big time at what you're doing for a long time. You know, like the Twins.

 

It ain't like you can get rottener (I think I made that word up - kinda experimenting with my vocab) when you're already among the worst at what you're doing.

 

So bring on those experiments. Just have the brains to figure out which ones are improvements and which ones are failures and the balls (little play on words there since we're talking baseball) to change things accordingly.

[Riverbrian]

 

I respectfully disagree. (I may also disrespectfully agree. We'll see how this goes. )

I've been trying to figure out how to say this. Basically, I think if all of those alternative pitching models had been the norm in baseball for a hundred years, some clever team by now would have decided it was better to have a small number of really good pitchers who can pitching 6 to 9 innings every time, and then have a few extra guys to come in to finish the game if the first guy had to come out. In other words, starters and relievers. Other teams would have followed suit, and that's where we would be today, with starters and relievers, a rotation and a bullpen.

 

I think I understand with what you are saying and I actually agree with you. If it was reversed and the new thing was the old thing. The old thing could become the new thing over time because new ideas happen naturally and the old thing would be a new idea. 

 

So yeah... I agree with the exception that others would have followed suit. A few would have followed suit like today. 

 

It would take awhile for most to follow suit because Sons learn from their Fathers and the Sons that learn from the Fathers never invent the internet. 

[Dantes929]

 

Until the old method is broken. The Red Sox steam rolled through the league, and it wasn't because of stacking pitchers or using openers.

Every way works if you do it well.   KC broke two huge trends when they won it.    Last in the league in homers but tough to strike out and mediocre starters with lights out bull pen.    San Fran in their every other season WS streak embraced pitch to contact but did it very well.    Boston gave up over 4 runs per game to Houston and nearly that to the Dodgers.   Many years that is not enough to get the job done but Boston also had a great offense.    In fact, statistically, Price was 26th in the league in ERA and Porcello was 45th.   Sale did not do great in the Division or World Series. Boston maybe doesn't win if Price doesn't pitch way beyond his past playoff performances. Home field advantage helps but   basically, make the playoffs and get hot is the best formula.     Of course, this is aided by having great starting pitchers.    Every method works if you have good players playing well.

[Riverbrian]

 

I disagree. If the bullpen is managed properly there shouldn't be a need for 8 relievers and it would give the Manager more FLEXABILITY if he has the extra bench player.

 

Under the traditional model yes... but it's going to get harder to manage the bullpen properly when the starters are not making it to 6 innings. 

[Major League Ready]

 

the issue of third time through the order is usually not with the bottom half of the order. That would be why teams went with openers rather than stacking.

With stacking are the pitchers you are stacking treated as long relievers or starters? Twice through the order is 70 pitches. Too many for a long reliever, too few for a starter. If the primary gets 5 more batters that puts it closer to 95-100 pitches and 6 innings out of the primary,

To make stacking work you would need to commit to a rotation being stacked and having them pitch every 4th game.  That would be the only way you could get 160 or more innings out of your starters.  The drawback is you would need 8 of them, not 5. Most teams have trouble finding 3-4.  On the plus side would be a 4 man bullpen, If you have a great starter then it is every 4th day for 5 innings or 6 innings when they are lights out. .

 

You don't need to get 160 innings out of all the starters. It does not make sense to apply old metrics to a new approach and you would not need 8 of them. You need to cover roughly 1500 innings. If you only need 3 regular SPs we should be able to come up with 3 that average 180+. Let's say you get 186 and 2/3 that's 560 innings. If 4 "stacked" SPs give you another 500, you need 440 innings out of 6 RPs or 73 and 1/3 per RP.  

 

I think this concept has merit. We know that most SPs do considerably worse the 3rd time through the order. It sure makes sense to take an approach that mitigates this problem. 

[Riverbrian]

 

You don't need to get 160 innings out of all the starters. It does not make sense to apply old metrics to a new approach and you would not need 8 of them. You need to cover roughly 1500 innings. If you only need 3 regular SPs we should be able to come up with 3 that average 180+. Let's say you get 186 and 2/3 that's 560 innings. If 4 "stacked" SPs give you another 500, you need 440 innings out of 6 RPs or 73 and 1/3 per RP.  

 

I think this concept has merit. We know that most SPs do considerably worse the 3rd time through the order. It sure makes sense to take an approach that mitigates this problem. 

 

You hit the nail on the head. 

 

I think people are missing the point. This really isn't about "The Opener" exclusively.  

 

What this is about... what Tampa Bay did... was take a new approach to the reallocation of innings. 

 

[jorgenswest]

My interest is finding a way to have a 12 man staff for the majority of the season.

 

I don’t think that is possible with the stacking strategy.

 

I wonder about the opener. I would like to look at the Rays opener starts and see how many pitchers were typically needed in those games and then compare that to the number of pitchers needed in starts by Twin fifth starters. Is the opener a greater burden on the bullpen?

 

While I do wonder about the opener strategy I am certain that the Twins need 5 good arms they can rely on in the bullpen or it doesn’t matter how they configure their rotation. I think they need to add 3 relievers.

[biggentleben]

 

Until the old method is broken. The Red Sox steam rolled through the league, and it wasn't because of stacking pitchers or using openers.

 

The Twins will have a $200+ million payroll to cover that depth of starters?

[biggentleben]

Depending on how it's structured, the Twins could have a 12- or 13-man pitching staff with the proposal. You would have Berrios and Gibson, then three spots paired up, which would be another 6. If you thought the stacking could go 5/4 in two of those three spots, you could pretty easily hold 4 relievers on top of that.

 

Part of what would make it work is that the relievers the Twins have all have options left. They could shuffle through a group of 6-8 relievers for those 4 spots pretty well.

[Vanimal46]

The Twins will have a $200+ million payroll to cover that depth of starters?

Their pitching staff alone costs $200 million? News to me! You said they have depth. Now they need to find a top end starter. Maybe they take on Grienke's salary. Maybe they sign someone. Starting pitching is still important in this crazy game.

[biggentleben]

 

Their pitching staff alone costs $200 million? News to me! You said they have depth. Now they need to find a top end starter. Maybe they take on Grienke's salary. Maybe they sign someone. Starting pitching is still important in this crazy game.

 

Read what I wrote. I said "a $200 million payroll to cover that depth" not that $200M was spent on the rotation.

[Riverbrian]

 

Depending on how it's structured, the Twins could have a 12- or 13-man pitching staff with the proposal. You would have Berrios and Gibson, then three spots paired up, which would be another 6. If you thought the stacking could go 5/4 in two of those three spots, you could pretty easily hold 4 relievers on top of that.

 

Part of what would make it work is that the relievers the Twins have all have options left. They could shuffle through a group of 6-8 relievers for those 4 spots pretty well.

 

I love the thinking however, there will be issues with Odorizzi and Pineda buying in if you limit it to Berrios and Gibson. 

 

The hardest part with the adjustment isn't the adjustment itself. A good manager can figure it out and just do it.

 

The Hardest part is going to be the thing that makes most adjustments hard. 

 

Money.

 

Starting Pitching makes a lot of money and bullpen pitching makes much less. This will be perhaps the biggest hurdle to player buy-in.

 

A front office can and should tear down the conventional walls if it improves your team... but once the wall comes down, there is another wall behind it and that wall (salary structure) is thick, entrenched and was based upon the model that has been removed.  

 

 

The analytic GM's are about to challenge that starting pitcher compensation model which will be added to the challenging of the free agent compensation model last off-season.

 

The next CBA negotiation is going to be horrible. 

 

Change is the slow boring of hard boards.