Article: Pitching Central

[Brock Beauchamp]

No I wasn't. But WAR does not predict team success either. It tells you have added a good player. The result of good play may leads to wins, but it takes a whole team to do that.

 

Get a bunch of players with high WAR and your team will win. Add a player with a high WAR and your chances of winning a few more games will go up.

 

Add a pitcher that had more wins in the previous season and there is virtually no correlation to additional wins in following seasons. Wins is a useless stat. At least WAR has a strong correlation to actual on-field performance.

[Mike Sixel]

What is a fair weather fan? Someone that has other interests, and will not spend money on a bad product? The people that move attendance to real profit? Those are 100 percent the fans the team should care about.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

Nick, unless you have further insight to share, you are speaking on assumptions.

 

You assume that the Twins have not been chasing after Marcum, Sanchez, Demptster, etc., based off of what? No public news?

 

You assume that no market offers have been made to these pitchers based on what? Twins history? Another assumption. No hard facts, just inferences that the Twins aren't trying or are unwilling.

 

These assumptions daisy chain to assumptions that the Twins are not looking to be competitive in 2013, that TR is cheap and unwilling to spend money, that the Twins are just looking to fleece the general population by not trying.

 

You know what happens when you assume...

 

The bottom line is that we don't know what we don't know. And yes, it is too early to be complaining about the how the Twins have not adequately addressed the starting pitching situation for 2013.

[Mike Sixel]

We know that he failed to sign good pitchers. Who cares if he tried? Drew Butera tries to hit, does not mean he should get to keep trying. Ryan's job is to make the team better, not try to make the team better.

[old nurse]

Get a bunch of players with high WAR and your team will win. Add a player with a high WAR and your chances of winning a few more games will go up.

 

Add a pitcher that had more wins in the previous season and there is virtually no correlation to additional wins in following seasons. Wins is a useless stat. At least WAR has a strong correlation to actual on-field performance.

 

Adding two pitchers each with a WAR of three would translate into six wins was the original point I responded to. Silly me to think that comment was absurd and post something equally absurd back. Why yes. You are even correct that if you get a team of high WAR players together your chances of winning go up. If they all play well enough together at the right time you have the Detroit Tigers.

[nicksaviking]

Nick, unless you have further insight to share, you are speaking on assumptions.

 

You assume that the Twins have not been chasing after Marcum, Sanchez, Demptster, etc., based off of what? No public news?

 

You assume that no market offers have been made to these pitchers based on what? Twins history? Another assumption. No hard facts, just inferences that the Twins aren't trying or are unwilling.

 

These assumptions daisy chain to assumptions that the Twins are not looking to be competitive in 2013, that TR is cheap and unwilling to spend money, that the Twins are just looking to fleece the general population by not trying.

 

You know what happens when you assume...

 

The bottom line is that we don't know what we don't know. And yes, it is too early to be complaining about the how the Twins have not adequately addressed the starting pitching situation for 2013.

 

 

It's more than an assumption when the probability is extremely high. It's rediculous to think the Twins are the only team out of 30 that can keep rumors from spreading. Agents purposefully leak this kind of information to stir up competition. We did after all hear rumors linking the Twins to bottom tier pitchers, why would those be the only ones leaked?

 

As to the fair-weather fans, they too will be factored into any discussions when it comes to negotiating television contracts. You'd think a wise organization would attempt to keep their interest. There is no rule that says you can't maintain a reasonable payroll AND rebuild at the same time.

[edavis0308]

Adding two pitchers each with a WAR of three would translate into six wins was the original point I responded to. Silly me to think that comment was absurd and post something equally absurd back. Why yes. You are even correct that if you get a team of high WAR players together your chances of winning go up. If they all play well enough together at the right time you have the Detroit Tigers.

 

Maybe I missed something, but if you add two 3 WAR players to replace players with a -WAR, that is more than 6.

[TRex]

How many wins would a team of 0 WAR players have...

 

If a 0 WAR team could have wins?

 

(Said to the tune of 'How much wood would a woodchuck chuck...')

[Nick Nelson]

Nick, unless you have further insight to share, you are speaking on assumptions.

 

You assume that the Twins have not been chasing after Marcum, Sanchez, Demptster, etc., based off of what? No public news?

 

You assume that no market offers have been made to these pitchers based on what? Twins history? Another assumption. No hard facts, just inferences that the Twins aren't trying or are unwilling.

 

These assumptions daisy chain to assumptions that the Twins are not looking to be competitive in 2013, that TR is cheap and unwilling to spend money, that the Twins are just looking to fleece the general population by not trying.

 

You know what happens when you assume...

 

The bottom line is that we don't know what we don't know. And yes, it is too early to be complaining about the how the Twins have not adequately addressed the starting pitching situation for 2013.

It's not really an assumption. There have been reports from people I trust that the Twins never made formal offers to many guys that they seemingly should have. The team's execs have openly stated -- or at least given strong indications to reporters -- that they're not interested in paying market price for average pitching. And we continue to hear no buzz surrounding their interest in the decent remaining names, only that they're "ready to pounce on a bargain."

 

I try not to be one to jump to baseless conclusions but you'd like to see the team's rhetoric and reporters' observations reflect the extremely urgent need for quality pitching. I can't help but be disheartened by the passive approach that they've taken publicly, and it causes me to have a hard time generating optimism that they'll do much else.

 

With that said, I recognize that there are still possible moves to be made and I haven't passed judgment on this offseason yet. I thought that was clear from the last couple paragraphs of the article.

[FrodaddyG]

How many wins would a team of 0 WAR players have...

 

If a 0 WAR team could have wins?

 

(Said to the tune of 'How much wood would a woodchuck chuck...')

I think one of the sites had it pegged at about 50 wins last I had seen, although that was a while ago.

[PseudoSABR]

 

You think the Twins are going to invest in free agent pitching next year, when prices only continue to inflate as the new TV revenue actually hits? Most of the usual big-market suspects like the Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers and Phillies have actually been pretty quiet this offseason. If the Twins are unwilling to "overpay" for quality talent right now, just wait until next winter. There's a good chance many of these goofy contracts will look downright reasonable in a year.

Look, I don't necessarily believe that, but certainly they'd have more impenitence to sign such pitchers when they are on the verge of competing and have more room in the budget. I mean, aren't you suggesting in part that the Twins should have made such moves this season.

 

It tells us that people don't want to get into these silly breakdowns of how many theoretical wins a player adds. It misses the point. As I said in the post, there's a difference between contending and making an effort to compete. I don't think many expect the former but we should all absolutely expect the latter, and we haven't gotten it. I'm all for the rebuilding approach but putting such a minimal effort into getting a decent product on the field in the meantime is inexcusable.

You have your own theory; that the Twins should have done more to compete this season. Which is fine and good, but I'm flabbergasted that you rebuff when pressed with "well what should the Twins specifically done to please you?" And asking you to legitimize such choices by noting how many more wins these moves might earn seems to totally legitimate. Not answering these questions makes your theory (the premise of this thread) pretty ethereal to me.

 

Look, are we really going to fault the Twins for going with an 80 million 75-win team as opposed to a 90 million 80-win team?

[ThePuck]

This team will be lucky to reach 70 wins.

[Alex]

 

Look, are we really going to fault the Twins for going with an 80 million 75-win team as opposed to a 90 million 80-win team?

 

I'd also be shocked if they win 75 with things as they stand, but to answer your question, maybe.

 

But assuming you are correct that the current team wins 75 games, $10M could get them more than 5 wins. They could get around 7 if they spend as "well" as they did last year. The Twins paid $1.43M per win last season (bottom 7 in the league). That would put them at .500 (based on the above scenario). I'd certainly respect that.

 

However, I actually think they are using their money less wisely this year and could lose more games, again, if things stay as they are.

[PseudoSABR]

I'd also be shocked if they win 75 with things as they stand, but to answer your question, maybe.

 

But assuming you are correct that the current team wins 75 games, $10M could get them more than 5 wins. They could get around 7 if they spend as "well" as they did last year. The Twins paid $1.43M per win last season (bottom 7 in the league). That would put them at .500 (based on the above scenario). I'd certainly respect that.

 

However, I actually think they are using their money less wisely this year and could lose more games, again, if things stay as they are.

To clarify, I wasn't really trying to be predictive. We could knock that number down to seventy and the other to seventy-five...the point is there's threshold of diminishing returns on using money to chase wins...

[Willihammer]

Look, are we really going to fault the Twins for going with an 80 million 75-win team as opposed to a 90 million 80-win team?

 

Revisiting ESPN?s preseason expert picks shows how unpredictable this MLB season has been

 

Things change over the course of a season. No, 90m doesn't guarantee anything, but it does improve your odds. If you have the money, you spend it. A lot can happen.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Revisiting ESPN?s preseason expert picks shows how unpredictable this MLB season has been

 

Things change over the course of a season. No, 90m doesn't guarantee anything, but it does improve your odds. If you have the money, you spend it. A lot can happen.

 

This. What happens if Harden rebounds, Pelfrey pitches 200 good innings, Parmelee puts up a good season, Morneau posts an .850 OPS, Hicks vies for RoY, and the Twins win 85 games, falling three games short of the playoffs? How much do you regret not picking up Shaun Marcum at that point?

 

You don't know what is going to happen in a baseball season. If you have the money to spend and zero payroll constraints over the next three years, why would you balk on signing a decent pitcher to a three year contract?

 

Worst case scenario, you sign a guy that bridges the gap to the next wave of young Twins players. It won't kill the team financially, there was a plethora of decent arms available, and the market is only going to go up in coming seasons. Little downside, marginal upside, you don't piss off the fanbase. Sounds like a pretty easy decision to me.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

It's not really an assumption. There have been reports from people I trust that the Twins never made formal offers to many guys that they seemingly should have. The team's execs have openly stated -- or at least given strong indications to reporters -- that they're not interested in paying market price for average pitching. And we continue to hear no buzz surrounding their interest in the decent remaining names, only that they're "ready to pounce on a bargain."

 

I try not to be one to jump to baseless conclusions but you'd like to see the team's rhetoric and reporters' observations reflect the extremely urgent need for quality pitching. I can't help but be disheartened by the passive approach that they've taken publicly, and it causes me to have a hard time generating optimism that they'll do much else.

 

With that said, I recognize that there are still possible moves to be made and I haven't passed judgment on this offseason yet. I thought that was clear from the last couple paragraphs of the article.

 

Would you rather have them come out and say "Our pitching stinks, both in the majors and minors, so we have no choice but to acquire a handful of upper tier starting pitching."? What point would that serve? All it would do is destroy any confidence our younger pitchers may have and undercut any barganing position TR might have. We all know the Twins would like to improve their pitching situation. The Twins know it, the recent draft and trades show you this. Any team would toe the company line in their situation and keep their mouth shut.

 

Ryan's job is as much PR as anything. It may be hard to generate positive buzz at the moment, but avoiding creating a bigger PR problem he can do by playing it passive in the media.

 

If the team has truly not made offers to some of these pitchers, why is that a concern? Why offer to a pitcher you have no intention of giving a long term contract to? How many 5-6 year pitching contracts have worked out for the life of the contract? Considering how the Twins have acted in the past, any pitcher requiring a contract longer than 2-3 years is out of their league. I doubt annual dollars would be a problem.

 

Like it or not, there is still a lot of conservative direction on this team. Bankers are conservative by nature (this I know), so would you expect the Pohlads to bring in a loose cannon, free spending GM?

[PseudoSABR]

This. What happens if Harden rebounds, Pelfrey pitches 200 good innings, Parmelee puts up a good season, Morneau posts an .850 OPS, Hicks vies for RoY, and the Twins win 85 games, falling three games short of the playoffs? How much do you regret not picking up Shaun Marcum at that point?

If that happens, the Twins look pretty smart, and they could still acquire a pitcher by trade. Sure they'd regret not picking up Marcum. But this of course, is totally rosy, and unlikely.

 

You don't know what is going to happen in a baseball season. If you have the money to spend and zero payroll constraints over the next three years, why would you balk on signing a decent pitcher to a three year contract?

Because it constrains your payroll the next year and the year after for a now older pitcher.

 

Worst case scenario, you sign a guy that bridges the gap to the next wave of young Twins players. It won't kill the team financially, there was a plethora of decent arms available, and the market is only going to go up in coming seasons. Little downside, marginal upside, you don't piss off the fanbase. Sounds like a pretty easy decision to me.

Sure from a fan perspective But I don't know if you can run a business like that. It gets back to my whole point about diminishing returns, how many more wins does really signing Marcum (or whomever) give the Twins.

 

My sense is that the Twins really don't value guys like Marcum and McCarthy that much more than the guys they've already picked up. So from their point of view, they are making an attempt to compete, but without spending money unnecessarily. (FTR, I hope we still do sign Marcum, even to a one year deal, but I'm just not going to get worked up over the non-signing, given the context of the rest of the offseason and the general direction of the club.)

[nicksaviking]

If that happens, the Twins look pretty smart, and they could still acquire a pitcher by trade. Sure they'd regret not picking up Marcum. But this of course, is totally rosy, and unlikely.

 

Because it constrains your payroll the next year and the year after for a now older pitcher.

 

No it won't. Next year the Twins will likely have 20 players at arbitration or pre arbitration levels. The Twins won't have payroll concerns until guys like Meyers, Hicks and Sano get deep into arbitration, and that's only if the team gets lucky and hits on multiple prospects. They haven't even played an MLB game yet.

 

The team is keeping payroll down now to set an artificially low baseline for the next half decade or so.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Because it constrains your payroll the next year and the year after for a now older pitcher.

 

Not really. The Twins had a pile of cash come off the books this offseason. They have another pile of cash coming off the books next offseason. Almost nobody is due for a large enough raise to matter. Under no circumstances can you make the argument that $13m to Marcum for a couple of years is going to constrain payroll.

 

Sure from a fan perspective But I don't know if you can run a business like that. It gets back to my whole point about diminishing returns, how many more wins does really signing Marcum (or whomever) give the Twins.

 

How on earth is that diminishing returns? Diminishing returns is replacing a 3 WAR player with a 4 WAR player in a quest to reach 95 wins. Diminishing returns shouldn't be in the argument when you're talking about replacing a -1 WAR player with a 3 WAR player in an attempt to not be completely, unequivocally ****ing awful when your main revenue stream as a business is the pursuit of paying fans.

 

My sense is that the Twins really don't value guys like Marcum and McCarthy that much more than the guys they've already picked up.

 

Then they'd be wrong. Marcum is miles better than Correia. They're not even in the same league. You could ask 29 GMs and every one of them would say the same thing.

[Alex]

Brock's last couple of posts have been on the money...

[SweetOne69]

 

Because it constrains your payroll the next year and the year after for a now older pitcher.

 

Sure from a fan perspective But I don't know if you can run a business like that. It gets back to my whole point about diminishing returns, how many more wins does really signing Marcum (or whomever) give the Twins.

 

 

This isn't a valid argument for 3 reasons:

 

1. The Twins will receive $25M more in broadcast revenue starting in 2014. That is more then enough to compensate Marcum for the last 2 years of his contract.

 

2. Morneau is a FA after 2013 and the Twins are most likely not going to re-sign him and he will be most likely be replaced by a rookie making league minimum so that is another $13.5M available for Marcum.

 

3. The Twins are currently $20M below last years payroll and there aren't many players due raises next year so they'll still have plenty of money to afford Marcum's multiyear deal.

[Alex]

If that happens, the Twins look pretty smart, and they could still acquire a pitcher by trade. Sure they'd regret not picking up Marcum. But this of course, is totally rosy, and unlikely.

 

Because it constrains your payroll the next year and the year after for a now older pitcher.

 

Sure from a fan perspective But I don't know if you can run a business like that.

 

Probably not smart from a business perpective to put junk on the field for possibly the third season in a row either.

 

, they are making an attempt to compete, but without spending money unnecessarily.

 

Worst rotation in the league by a longshot last year...I'd call it necessary.

[Nick Nelson]

If the team has truly not made offers to some of these pitchers, why is that a concern? Why offer to a pitcher you have no intention of giving a long term contract to? How many 5-6 year pitching contracts have worked out for the life of the contract? Considering how the Twins have acted in the past, any pitcher requiring a contract longer than 2-3 years is out of their league. I doubt annual dollars would be a problem.

I think you've got the wrong idea about my level of expectations. I'm not necessarily asking for an "upper tier" pitcher and I'm certainly not asking for a 5-6 year contract (a whopping two of which have been signed this winter). There were plenty of guys signed or acquired on 2-3 year deals that I would have been satisfied with, including Santana, Guthrie, Blanton, McCarthy, Liriano, Dempster, Myers, Villanueva, etc. I just want to see some sort of commitment to making the team better and those guys have a much better chance to do so than Correia and Co. from almost any standpoint.

 

For the most part I don't have much to add to what Brock's been saying. The notion that the Twins can't enter a multi-year deal due to upcoming payroll constraints is absurd. Their need for pitching spans well beyond this season and the cost to acquire it will only rise going forward.

[PseudoSABR]

Not really. The Twins had a pile of cash come off the books this offseason. They have another pile of cash coming off the books next offseason. Almost nobody is due for a large enough raise to matter. Under no circumstances can you make the argument that $13m to Marcum for a couple of years is going to constrain payroll.

Look, we can make the argument that signing Marcum precludes us from signing a better pitcher like Josh Johnson. We could use that money in any number of better ways--just because there is money coming off the books, doesn't mean we should become free spending and invest in players the team doesn't believe in.

 

How on earth is that diminishing returns? Diminishing returns is replacing a 3 WAR player with a 4 WAR player in a quest to reach 95 wins. Diminishing returns shouldn't be in the argument when you're talking about replacing a -1 WAR player with a 3 WAR player in an attempt to not be completely, unequivocally ****ing awful when your main revenue stream as a business is the pursuit of paying fans.

Firstly, this misses the context of what already has happened this off season. Secondly, Marcum was not a 3 or 4 WAR player last year. Marcum, at this point, isn't replacing a negative WAR player like PJ Walters, he'd be replacing whoever is in the number 5 slot Harden/Hendricks/Gibson. It becomes diminishing returns when you spend millions of dollars to upgrade a position by a minimal amount of WAR (or wins).

 

Then they'd be wrong. Marcum is miles better than Correia. They're not even in the same league. You could ask 29 GMs and every one of them would say the same thing.

Two things: 1) The difference between the two last year in WAR was .5, the difference in xFIP .1. 2) The Twins might actually have legitimate concerns about Marcum's heath. (I agree Marcum gives us far more to hope on, but that doesn't mean he'll produce like he did a couple years ago with the BJs).

 

And really, you're better than predicting the rosiest outcome for your pet free agent of choice (3 or 4 WAR) and the worst outcome for the players he's replacing (-1 WAR). Come on, man.

 

As I've said before, I'd like Marcum on the team, but there is a point of diminishing returns by upgrading from mediocre to average, as each run on the ladder becomes excessively more expensive. I'm for such overpayments when we're actually in a postion to compete and we have a better sense of our actual needs for such a team .

[PseudoSABR]

Worst rotation in the league by a longshot last year...I'd call it necessary.

TR has brought in four pitchers to compete for the rotation (even if they all have warts). There's something of a false sentiment here that the Twins have done nothing to fix the rotation; they may not have done enough, but the rotation will be much better last year.

[Mike Sixel]

Like next year when Morneau is gone, Mauer and Willingham and Doumit are a year older? Or maybe the year after when Willingham is gone too? As Hunter said, they play for a future that never comes.

[PseudoSABR]

As Hunter said, they play for a future that never comes.

Does Hunter realize that the success of the teams he was on were all built through "playing for the future"? That's rhetorical question.

[Willihammer]

Marcum was not a 3 or 4 WAR player last year. ..WAR was .5, the difference in xFIP ... (3 or 4 WAR)... he's replacing (-1 WAR)

 

I don't like Marcum because I don't like giving multi-year deals to guys with sore elbows. But, its awfully convenient to use FIP or FIP-derived WAR in your position. Parker has already wrote at length on this. Marcum is something of a special case in that a significant portion his value is in Fielding Dependent Pitching (6.5 FDP wins for his career).

 

Twins Daily - Shawn Marcum could be a fit for the Twins

 

And it is his plethora of off-speed and breaking pitches that makes him so impossible to make contact against. Again, since 2007, Marcum has registered the sixth-highest swinging strike rate in baseball behind such luminaries as Cole Hamels, Johan Santana, CC Sabathia, Tim Lincecum, Ryan Dempster and Max Scherzer. That’s right: He missed more bats than Justin Verlander. Now, this has not translated into a ton of strikeouts but it shows that he is consistently confounding opponents.

 

What makes Marcum so effective in spite of the town ball-level velocity is his ability to keep the fastball away off the plate while mixing in a variety of pitches and speeds that make hitters’ heads’ spin. Take a look at this year’s heat map of his pitch location:

 

 

To both sides, he served every down and away. The reason this is noteworthy is because this area is perhaps the most difficult for a hitter to square up and certainly one of the hardest areas to pull consistently....

[ThePuck]

they may not have done enough, but the rotation will be much better last year.

 

That's an assumption I wouldn't make...I especially wouldn't throw in the word 'much'