Odorizzi - 75 pitches and done.

[Kelly Vance]

 

Have talked about this before.  I prefer to have Mejia as the fifth starter.  Because he also does best in 4-5 innings, I would stack him with Romero, who would come on and finish the game.  The hard throwing right handed Romero following a softer tossing lefty makes a lot of sense to me.  But what the H.. do I know about pitching.

Many thousands of little league managers do this allatime

[Jim Hahn]

Many thousands of little league managers do this allatime

I started with the hard throwing rightly. Then I brought in the softvthrowing lefty because he threw strikes. He claimed to have 5 pitches But they all looked like change ups to me.

[Kelly Vance]

 

I started with the hard throwing rightly. Then I brought in the softvthrowing lefty because he threw strikes. He claimed to have 5 pitches But they all looked like change ups to me.

I had a pudgy soft throwing 14 year old that won 6 games for us following this strategy. Throwing strikes is key.  But to be totally honest, faster to slower or slower to faster working out depends on lots of stuff the manager can't control. If it works, we get to take credit though.

[Kelly Vance]

Well, reality check.   Starters all want to finish 5 IP with a lead, so they have a chance to notch a W.  That's my criticism of the opener concept. I don't see a guy like Odo wanting to come out after 4 IP, and lose a chance at a W. But sending him out in the 6th seems like tempting fate. 

[Rosterman]

But then you are having two pitchers for essentially one role, and they can't come out again and pitch on short notice. Kinda like burning a relief pitcher for an inning as an opener. Doesn't make sense. You are a starting pitcher, a long-guy who can MAYBE pitch every other or every third day, and a one-inning guy. Use to have guys that just face a batter (or two) but that is a luxury when starters can barely get to the 7th inning anymore.

 

Sadly, team rosters need to increase in the day of specialization (and you'd think the union would be pushing for this) with 27 or 28 names. Maybe you can only roster 35 for a game. But would be nice to have an extra bench body beside an additional arm.

 

Of course, at one time a starting pitcher threw 160 or more pitches and pitched every fourth day.

 

And the money they made (according to ol' Bert) was much much less!

[ashbury]

Well, reality check. Starters all want to finish 5 IP with a lead, so they have a chance to notch a W. That's my criticism of the opener concept. I don't see a guy like Odo wanting to come out after 4 IP, and lose a chance at a W. But sending him out in the 6th seems like tempting fate.

A stat like Wins isn't really a good reason to form your pitching strategy. But rest easy. If the pitcher who starts doesn't go five, he's not eligible for the win. Then the Official Scorer will decide who should be awarded the win, and it'll usually go to a guy who does go five. Odorizzi might even get the occasional cheap four inning win, so he should actually like the Opener strategy if they go with it routinely.

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

But then you are having two pitchers for essentially one role, and they can't come out again and pitch on short notice. Kinda like burning a relief pitcher for an inning as an opener. Doesn't make sense. You are a starting pitcher, a long-guy who can MAYBE pitch every other or every third day, and a one-inning guy. Use to have guys that just face a batter (or two) but that is a luxury when starters can barely get to the 7th inning anymore.

 

Sadly, team rosters need to increase in the day of specialization (and you'd think the union would be pushing for this) with 27 or 28 names. Maybe you can only roster 35 for a game. But would be nice to have an extra bench body beside an additional arm.

 

Of course, at one time a starting pitcher threw 160 or more pitches and pitched every fourth day.

 

And the money they made (according to ol' Bert) was much much less!

This makes a great point. If you are an AL team like the Rays with the DH and a 13 man pitching staff you are now left with a 3 man bench, one of whom is the backup C. It is mentioned on here about why put us in a box? Well imo we are just jumping out of one box into another, and it might just be a smaller box. Just a few recent years ago we had 5-6 man bench's. With essentially a 2 man bench the strategies of defensive changes and pinch hitting and pinch running are almost all but eliminated. With smaller pitching staffs we still had pitching changes. With the short bench though we lose managerial strategy in those aspects of the game. This isn't better as far as I'm concerned. Those strategies were a huge part of my own interest in the game of ML baseball. Time for expanded rosters or a reevaluation of the 13 man staff, I've even heard mention of 14 now. Yuck.

[ChrisKnutson]

#1- Jose Berrios

#2- Kyle Gibson

#3- Michael Pineda

#4- Jake Odorizzi

#5- Gio Gonzalez

 

CL- Cody Allen

Trevor May

Fernando Romero

Taylor Rogers

Adalberto Mejia

Addison Reed

Gabriel Moya (or Vasquez/Thorpe)

Matt Magill (or Alcala/Stewart/Hildy/Curtiss/Reed)

 

IMO believe Baldelli should have a tight lease on both Pineda and Odorizzi to start the season since Odo has a history of not being able to go deep in games, while Pineda is coming off two injuries (TJ and a Meniscus tear). Whenever they run into trouble, or reach the third time through the order, bring in Romero/Mejia for 2-3 innings (even though I’d prefer them to be used as starters).

 

However as the season progresses, and arms start to get tired (injuries happen), sticking with the same plan (or same pitchers) won’t be an option for Baldelli so he’ll need to make adjustments like depending on other less favorable relievers (even rookies), along with loosening his grip on Pineda and Odorizzi’s innings. And with all the primary pitcher candidates we got, it’ll be interesting to see how the opener strategy plays into Baldelli’s plan as well.

[Twodogs]

My issue with Odorizzi has always been his waste of pitches. It seems as though many times, even when he puts up a 1,2,3 inning he throws like 25 pitches. The good pitchers seem to get those 1,2,3 innings in like 10 - 12 pitches, for whatever reason Odo seems to waste a lot of pitches to each hitter. Maybe he has to in order to fool them, or maybe he just doesn't have the type of control that the real good pitchers have. However, this seems to have two negative impacts. One, he damn near throws 100 pitches through 4 - 5 innings which limits how long he can go, also as hitters see more and more of his stuff, even those waste pitches they start to get less fooled by them. It has always seemed to me that those real good pitchers out there, if they were going to get hit, it was going to happen early, 1st inning, because it always seemed like they saved some of their better stuff for mid to late innings, whereas Odo seems to do just fine early and gets clobbered late because all his stuff has been seen. That is all just my opinion and observation, but it seems to make sense with him. He either needs to waste less pitches and see if he can get through those first couple of innings with minimal pitches or he needs to come in during the 2nd or 3rd and try to get to the 5th or 6th.

 

Funny thing you guys were talking about little league, but I think that MLB if it continues down this same road may have to look at things a little closer. Your normal little league team or high school team etc... Most of the time the best players on the team are the pitchers, they also seem to play short, 3B, 1B, C etc... So if we look at a guy like Ohtani, he might set a new precedent?? I think there was also a couple of guys in the draft two years ago that were being drafted as both position players and pitchers. I believe one of them came out of college so he was obviously doing it at a high level. So maybe teams need to have a couple of position players that can also pitch, and no, not like Gimenez, I don't mean a dude who just comes in to waste the last inning or two of a blowout, but more like Ohtani, in fact that may be too far on the good side of things. Maybe more like a good bench player, you know a dude who can play multiple positions in the infield and can also pitch effectively out of the bullpen, or maybe some guy who can be a 4th OFer and maybe he can start 8 - 10 games a year. Obviously a lot would have to change in the college ranks and the minors to encourage this type of development, but if you had two dudes that could pitch and could also play some defense and could swing the stick a little you would solve a lot of problems with guys that can only pitch 3 - 4 innings in today's game.

[Jim Hahn]

The focus of this article was how to best utilize Odorizzi who seemingly can only throw 75 quality pitches a game. Twodogs touches on the more important issue with Ordorizzi and others like him, what are the limiting factors that are reducing him to 75 pitches? Does he lose velocity after 75 pitches? Does his stuff flatten out? Does his command deteriorate? Does he become too predictable? Does he need another pitch to mix in with his existing pitches?

 

I hope this FO is looking more at this aspect of starting pitching. Too me, this is the best way to fix the problems inherit in using so many relief pitchers every game. Take your pretty good starters and figure ways to get them deeper into games. Help them be more efficient. Work with them and catchers to sequence better. Talk about pacing, so you aren't taking 30 seconds between pitches, especially when it is near freezing or 100 above. Figure ways to improve command. Perhaps, even even suggest pitchers don't have to try to strike out every hitter, merely try to get them to hit your pitch.

 

There are other ways to make starters better. Conditioning, refining mechanics, focusing exercises. Generally starters are better pitchers than most relievers, I want the Twins to figure out how to get more innings out of the starters, not less. The more relievers you have to bring into a game increases the chance that at least one won't have his best stuff in that particular game. It also decreases your flexibility for the next game.

 

Getting as many quality innings as possible out of your starters will ultimately make your bullpen better by decreasing the usage of your poorer relievers and not overusing your best relievers.

[Kelly Vance]

 

A stat like Wins isn't really a good reason to form your pitching strategy. But rest easy. If the pitcher who starts doesn't go five, he's not eligible for the win. Then the Official Scorer will decide who should be awarded the win, and it'll usually go to a guy who does go five. Odorizzi might even get the occasional cheap four inning win, so he should actually like the Opener strategy if they go with it routinely.

A starter has to finish 5 innings to get a win.  And its not my pitching strategy I am talking about, its those starters that get jobbed if they are ahead after 4 and you take them out.... what if they have contract incentives for the number of wins?

 

I'm saying this opener concept seems to try to fix something that ain't really broken 

[Riverbrian]

 

My issue with Odorizzi has always been his waste of pitches. It seems as though many times, even when he puts up a 1,2,3 inning he throws like 25 pitches. The good pitchers seem to get those 1,2,3 innings in like 10 - 12 pitches, for whatever reason Odo seems to waste a lot of pitches to each hitter. Maybe he has to in order to fool them, or maybe he just doesn't have the type of control that the real good pitchers have. However, this seems to have two negative impacts. One, he damn near throws 100 pitches through 4 - 5 innings which limits how long he can go, also as hitters see more and more of his stuff, even those waste pitches they start to get less fooled by them. It has always seemed to me that those real good pitchers out there, if they were going to get hit, it was going to happen early, 1st inning, because it always seemed like they saved some of their better stuff for mid to late innings, whereas Odo seems to do just fine early and gets clobbered late because all his stuff has been seen. That is all just my opinion and observation, but it seems to make sense with him. He either needs to waste less pitches and see if he can get through those first couple of innings with minimal pitches or he needs to come in during the 2nd or 3rd and try to get to the 5th or 6th.

Funny thing you guys were talking about little league, but I think that MLB if it continues down this same road may have to look at things a little closer. Your normal little league team or high school team etc... Most of the time the best players on the team are the pitchers, they also seem to play short, 3B, 1B, C etc... So if we look at a guy like Ohtani, he might set a new precedent?? I think there was also a couple of guys in the draft two years ago that were being drafted as both position players and pitchers. I believe one of them came out of college so he was obviously doing it at a high level. So maybe teams need to have a couple of position players that can also pitch, and no, not like Gimenez, I don't mean a dude who just comes in to waste the last inning or two of a blowout, but more like Ohtani, in fact that may be too far on the good side of things. Maybe more like a good bench player, you know a dude who can play multiple positions in the infield and can also pitch effectively out of the bullpen, or maybe some guy who can be a 4th OFer and maybe he can start 8 - 10 games a year. Obviously a lot would have to change in the college ranks and the minors to encourage this type of development, but if you had two dudes that could pitch and could also play some defense and could swing the stick a little you would solve a lot of problems with guys that can only pitch 3 - 4 innings in today's game.

 

Those guys exist. Unfortunately, they haven't been allowed to exist. 

 

MLB teams draft players who can do both and then decide if they will be a pitcher or position player and then they do one or the other. 

 

We've had players who were designated a position player... struggle and then try to reinvent themselves as a pitcher and vice versa but until Ohtani came along nobody was allowed to do both. 

 

Ohtani is obviously special but he isn't that special. Nobody will be able to convince me that Ohtani was the only one. I believe multiple players would have been here before Ohtani... if they would have allowed it. 

[Mr. Brooks]

A starter has to finish 5 innings to get a win. And its not my pitching strategy I am talking about, its those starters that get jobbed if they are ahead after 4 and you take them out.... what if they have contract incentives for the number of wins?

 

I'm saying this opener concept seems to try to fix something that ain't really broken

That kind of contract incentive is not allowed under the CBA. Playing time and awards are, stats are not.

[USAFChief]

That kind of contract incentive is not allowed under the CBA. Playing time and awards are, stats are not.

not to mention, I care if the Twins get a W, not which pitcher gets a W.

 

One of the things that I hated most as a fan is watching Gardenhire and/or Molitor let a starter cough up a lead because his manager was trying to get him a W.

[Twodogs]

The focus of this article was how to best utilize Odorizzi who seemingly can only throw 75 quality pitches a game. Twodogs touches on the more important issue with Ordorizzi and others like him, what are the limiting factors that are reducing him to 75 pitches? Does he lose velocity after 75 pitches? Does his stuff flatten out? Does his command deteriorate? Does he become too predictable? Does he need another pitch to mix in with his existing pitches?

 

I hope this FO is looking more at this aspect of starting pitching. Too me, this is the best way to fix the problems inherit in using so many relief pitchers every game. Take your pretty good starters and figure ways to get them deeper into games. Help them be more efficient. Work with them and catchers to sequence better. Talk about pacing, so you aren't taking 30 seconds between pitches, especially when it is near freezing or 100 above. Figure ways to improve command. Perhaps, even even suggest pitchers don't have to try to strike out every hitter, merely try to get them to hit your pitch.

 

There are other ways to make starters better. Conditioning, refining mechanics, focusing exercises. Generally starters are better pitchers than most relievers, I want the Twins to figure out how to get more innings out of the starters, not less. The more relievers you have to bring into a game increases the chance that at least one won't have his best stuff in that particular game. It also decreases your flexibility for the next game.

 

Getting as many quality innings as possible out of your starters will ultimately make your bullpen better by decreasing the usage of your poorer relievers and not overusing your best relievers.

I agree with the general gist of this post. I feel like the coaches and management needs to work with these guys to figure out how to get them to pitch 6 or more innings, I also think that the opener idea is a valid concept, but I feel as though it needs to be used as a reaction to when a pitcher is under performing. So in other words be ready to start using openers for a pitcher after he shows that he's struggling with his starting role over and over again. But I think at the beginning of each season the idea should be that your 5 starters are your 5 starters. Use them in a traditional manner until after a number of starts they show that they need an opener. If you go into the beginning of the season tabbing one or two of your starting pitchers saying they need an opener then you have failed to prepare for that season. If at the beginning of the season you say these 5 guys should get the job done, then at least you can say to your fans that you prepared for the upcoming season, if you have to change course part way through the season and you then need an opener or two then you also showed that you were also prepared for when things didn't go as planned.

 

So in short, I think you need to plan in a way that you can adjust and go to an opener if need be, but don't start the season with that plan, start the season saying that these guys are good enough to produce for us this year.

[Kelly Vance]

 

That kind of contract incentive is not allowed under the CBA. Playing time and awards are, stats are not.

I remember Hughes had a clause where he got a $500K bonus for innings pitched. He fell an inning short, I think.  Anyway, my point is that a guy like Odo losing 4 wins over a season could cause problems.Wins are still the currency of the realm for a starter. And a guy with 13 wins gets more as a FA than a guy with 8.  Imagine in a salary arbitration hearing how a team preventing a guy from having a chance at a a win would play out.  Odo, call your union rep.  

[Mr. Brooks]

I remember Hughes had a clause where he got a $500K bonus for innings pitched. He fell an inning short, I think. Anyway, my point is that a guy like Odo losing 4 wins over a season could cause problems.Wins are still the currency of the realm for a starter. And a guy with 13 wins gets more as a FA than a guy with 8. Imagine in a salary arbitration hearing how a team preventing a guy from having a chance at a a win would play out. Odo, call your union rep.

Innings pitched are considered playing time. As I said that's allowed. Wins are considered performance, that's not allowed under the CBA.

 

The team's job is to win games, not to help players pad their stats. I highly doubt wins have any bearing whatsoever on contract negotiations anymore, in 2019.

[Kelly Vance]

 

Innings pitched are considered playing time. As I said that's allowed. Wins are considered performance, that's not allowed under the CBA.

The team's job is to win games, not to help players pad their stats. I highly doubt wins have any bearing whatsoever on contract negotiations anymore, in 2019.

Of course they do.  If you win 20 games, that more than anything gets you a Cy Young these days

[Mr. Brooks]

Of course they do. If you win 20 games, that more than anything gets you a Cy Young these days

Ten years ago, when Johan got robbed sure. Now, I doubt the voters literally even look at that stat.

 

But, even if they do, I don't care. Do you think it's the Twins job to win games, or to pad guys stats?

[Jim Hahn]

Ten years ago, when Johan got robbed sure. Now, I doubt the voters literally even look at that stat.

But, even if they do, I don't care. Do you think it's the Twins job to win games, or3 to pad guys stats?

Now I'm confused. If a starter starts and wins a game, how is that not helping his team win games?

[Riverbrian]

 

Now I'm confused. If a starter starts and wins a game, how is that not helping his team win games?

 

You're not confused Jim. 

 

The whole purpose of the changes is to increase the chances of winning. Otherwise you don't consider it and you know that. Trying to run traditionally is lowering the chances of winning. 

 

Compensation is an issue... It's a big issue. The 5 man rotation is baked into the system, there is going to be resistance and money is going to be a big part of that resistance. 

 

However... Mr. Brooks is right.

 

The goal is to win games. The current system is going to have to adjust. 

[ashbury]

Of course they do.  If you win 20 games, that more than anything gets you a Cy Young these days

Why are we bringing up the Cy Young Award in a thread about Jake Odorizzi?

[Jim Hahn]

I get what you are saying here and elsewhere , Brian. I could even construct models that perfectly fit together 2 inning pitchers, 3 inning pitchers, 5 inninng pitchers, 1 inning pitchers and the increasingly rare 7 inning pitchers. It would look wonderful on a chart, and would get everyone their proper rest and you could fit around scheduled days off and everything. But baseball doesn't really work like that. There are rainouts and rain delays. One inning pitchers don't always complete 1 inning. Your workhorse starter sometimes doesn't get through 1 inning, which would mess up my model for at least a week.

 

The reason baseball has used a 5 man rotation since the 70's is that largely, it works. It has some built flexibility, you can skip a starter after a rainouts or not. You can usually compensate for 1 poor start with a long men, etc. Now, right now it seems to be increasingly hard to find enough durable, effective starters to fill out a traditional 5 man rotation model.

 

There are at least two ways to fix this problem. Work harder at making starters last longer and be more effective, or throw away the old model and try to create something new and theoretically more effective, as you suggest. I personally am leaning to the first solution for a lot of reasons.

 

First, with a 25 man roster most of these new solutions are pretty hard to implement. You really can't contract the position player bench anymore than it is and shuttling pitchers has certain limitations that can inhibit its effectiveness. That tends to mean that at certain times during the season you will find yourself using the 14th and 15th best pitchers on your 40 man roster or dropping players off your 40 man roster and adding new ones merely to keep from overusing players.

 

Another issue with these ideas is that relief pitchers are getting overused in any number of ways. Too many times pitchers are asked to warmup multiple times befor getting in games. Max delivery relievers asked to pitch multiple innings too often. Short relievers pitching too many games in a row. I am having a hard time seeing how new use models will help that, and it likely it could make this kind of abuse even worse.

 

Finally, even if you change roster rules to make these ideas easier to implement, you are still using more pitchers. Since part of the real problem here is that there are not enough good pitchers, using more pitchers is a counter intuitive solution to the problem. Again, I would like to see baseball working harder to get more innings out of your pretty good starters rather than using more less good pitchers.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Now I'm confused. If a starter starts and wins a game, how is that not helping his team win games?

it does help, but managing to that metric does not help in many games.

 

it’s the number of times that the starter like Odorizzi gets gassed in the 4th but gets trotted back out for the 5th (and as expected coughs up runs) because the manager is managing to a bad stat.

 

If a pitcher throws the first pitch of the ballgame throws 75 quality pitches through 4 innings and gives up no runs but doesn’t get the “pitcher win” or “quality start”, is that bad? Did that not help the team of the shared goal of a win after 9 innings?

 

Agreed with several posters that improving the starting rotation is a way to win more games. I’d like the Twins to improve the rotation too, but the fact remains, 3/5 of the rotation would need to be improved and there aren’t that many starters feasibly available to the Twins right now.

 

Winning in 2019 will not and cannot be on the back of the best rotation in baseball, not even on a rotation good enough to get starts of 5+ innings on 130 games.

 

So what is feasible for this team to get 1500 quality innings pitched? Like the Royals from a couple years ago and the Brewers last year, it’s removing the label of starter and reliever and just getting the best pitchers you can, of all varieties of endurance, and piece it together.

[jorgenswest]

Interesting study from SABR and the origins of the pitching rotation.

 

https://sabr.org/research/origins-pitching-rotation

 

I don’t have any definitive takeaways but it did cause a few thoughts.

 

- I wonder about the typical size of a pitching staff over time. I know it has increased to the point where platooning isn’t very viable.

- I wonder if today’s rotation 5 man model is too rigid and whether pitching roles themselves have become too rigid.

- I wonder about the history of pitcher health. This is difficult to track as I suspect pitchers were injured but kept pitching many years ago.

 

I do think the construction of the pitching staff will evolve again. I think the Twins are trying to be in the front side of that curve.

[Twodogs]

I remember Hughes had a clause where he got a $500K bonus for innings pitched. He fell an inning short, I think. Anyway, my point is that a guy like Odo losing 4 wins over a season could cause problems.Wins are still the currency of the realm for a starter. And a guy with 13 wins gets more as a FA than a guy with 8. Imagine in a salary arbitration hearing how a team preventing a guy from having a chance at a a win would play out. Odo, call your union rep.

I'm not a huge opener fan, I'm more along the lines that if after a month the dude isn't getting it done then use an opener for him the rest of the way. However, I don't get your argument. Odo would get the win if someone came in and started the game, went 2 innings, Odo comes in for the 3rd and pitches to the 6th, Odo would be the one who qualifies for the win?? The way you'd screw Odo out of wins would be by starting him and only letting him pitch 4 innings because he's thrown 100 pitches in those 4 innings. So using an opener really doesn't affect Odo's chances for wins, it only affects his numbers of games started.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I do think you'll see a little less of guys warming up vigorously in the pen, then not getting in the game. I believe that has an impact on performance.

 

Also for the first time in how long, the Twins won't have a Rule 5 or a Hughes type on their staff. That will help quite a bit. Those almost feel like free rosters slots this time around and should help keep them at 12 for stretches. I agree with the posters who want to play it straight and not get too carried away with experimentation in 2019. I want to see one or two more good arms added, and then trust they'll be smarter with usage of the arms they do have. The need for experimentation in 2019 is not that great, in my opinion.

[Jim Hahn]

Interesting study from SABR and the origins of the pitching rotation.

https://sabr.org/research/origins-pitching-rotation

I don’t have any definitive takeaways but it did cause a few thoughts.

- I wonder about the typical size of a pitching staff over time. I know it has increased to the point where platooning isn’t very viable.

- I wonder if today’s rotation 5 man model is too rigid and whether pitching roles themselves have become too rigid.

- I wonder about the history of pitcher health. This is difficult to track as I suspect pitchers were injured but kept pitching many years ago.

I do think the construction of the pitching staff will evolve again. I think the Twins are trying to be in the front side of that curve.

In The 60's when I started following baseball, pitching staffs were typically 8, with 4 starters. Starters often pitched thru bad games to, I suppose, pertect the rest of the staff. They often pitched thru sore arms. The book Ball Four detailed some of this. There were usually one or two closers or finishers, who often pitched multiple innings. The other pitchers were long men or spot starters. Jim Perry was used this way by the Twins until he became a starter.

 

This kind of usage tended to chew through starters, with the notable exception of a few rubber armed guys. Starters of that era had some advantages. Higher mounds and bigger strike zones tended to help reduce the number of pitches needed per outing.

 

5 man rotations and fewer dominant starters increased staff sizes in the 70's. There was still a lot of short careers due to injuries and a number of pitchers reinvented themselves from hard throwers to soft tossers because injuries robbed them of velocity.

 

This might not help you much since these are observations not stats.

[jorgenswest]

I think you need a pretty deep bullpen for the opener strategy to work. That opener is going to see the opponents best hitters in the first inning. It can’t be a guy from the back of the bullpen.

 

Last year AL pitchers had a 4.71 ERA in the first inning vs an ERA of 4.05 and 4.02 in the second or third inning, Odorizzi doesn’t fit that pattern. He pitched well in the first inning last year with an ERA of 3.09. That is only meaningful because over the sample of his career he has performed well in the first inning. I don’t think the Twins can pull a reliever for the back of the bullpen and match that 3.09 ERA in the first inning.

 

Do the Twins try to change Odorizzi so he goes against his career tendencies of dropping off around the 4th or 5th inning?

 

Do the Twins try to utilize the talents he has established?

 

He might be best utilized opening and going three innings. Last year’s line innings 1-3:

 

94.2 IP, 3.14 ERA, 100 K, 36 BB, .628 OPS against

 

The sample is relatively small but consistent with his career.

 

He wouldn’t get any wins being pulled after 3 innings but those numbers would certainly help a team win. Those are tough innings. You probably are seeing the top of the lineup a second time. I don’t know how you configure a staff to utilize that talent. I don’t know if he can go out and pitch 3 innings more often than every 5th day. I do think there is an underutilized role of a pitcher who can be effective for 3-4 innings.

[Doomtints]

 

He has solid splits for his career in the first three groups but there is a large drop off in the 76-100 set. This isn’t typical for a starter.

 

I'm thinking it's typical for a #3/#4 starter, though, which is what he is.