Jump to content
  • Create Account

How the Twins Front Office Addressed Past Playoff Weaknesses


 

The problem with this statement is that, in 2019 and 2020, the Twins objectively had one of the best bullpens in MLB. So for you to simply declare incompetence with no evidence is much, much less reasonable than if, say, the Twins had one of the worst bullpens.

 

What you really did throughout this thread was say 'Even though the statistics completely disagree with me, I say that the Twins front office stinks, and it would be a waste of my time to justify this outlandish claim, and the reason it would be a waste of time is because you would just ask for actual reasons behind my statements.'

 

Discussion of the front office is not happening in a vacuum. There are real numbers that strongly indicate that the Twins' front office is competent. If someone is going to disagree with that, they should absolutely be expected to justify that position. Otherwise the criticism is pure trolling.

Can you point to where I said the FO was incompetent or where I said they "stink?" You're attacking arguments that I'm not making. Proficiency and flaws aren't mutually exclusive when it comes to running a team. I assumed that was apparent.  

 

Sano, Polanco, Arraez, and Garver in the IF. Rosario and Kepler in the OF, and Buxton would've started over Marwin if healthy. Duffey, Rogers, and May were hands down the best bullpen arms. Berrios got the game 1 start. Every member of that group entering game 1 of the '19 ALDS was inherited by this FO. I'll stand by my opinion that the FO didn't walk into a doom and gloom scenario. What's the statistical disagreement as to whether the core contributions for the success over the last 2 seasons has come from inherited players? 

 

Ryne Harper, Blake Parker, Matt Magill, Lewis Thorpe, Kohl Stewart, Trevor Hildenberger, Adalberto Mejia, Fernando Romero, Sean Poppen, and Sam Dyson combined to throw roughly 40% of the bullpen innings in '19. Of that group Harper easily takes the top spot, he was serviceable, and he was DFA'd in August. You can point to aggregate bullpen stats and use Duffey, May, and Rogers to mask how ineffective the middle/back end of the pen was, but I wouldn't call that an objective take. The Twins DFA'd their closer in July, and a month later DFA'd Harper, who finished the year with the most innings behind the trio previously mentioned. Is that normal for one of the best bullpens in baseball? Were the Twins so rich with pitching talent that they simply didn't need the services of either pitcher? If that was the case, why were so many innings be allocated to inferior arms throughout the season? 

 

I hope I'm not the only one who notices the disparity between what you've demanded, and what you've provided in this thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm just trying to imagine myself from 2016 reading all these comments from people who are bored with winning baseball 

Reality check: This is not a "make or break year for the FO." They completely turned around a mess of a franchise and have produced the best W% for a Twins team in the past 50 years in 2019/20. I know

What a bunch of Debbie downers.  This team plays division winning baseball and it's not good enough? It is as worse than the years they couldn't touch 500 baseball? I bet you all are the one's that sa

 

I didn't say Colome "fixed the pen," I said he was an upgrade over the guy he replaced, who struggled in the postseason. The pen didn't need fixing, it was one of the best in the league.

I also never said Maeda is second to Cole, I posed the question: which other contenders have a better #1 starter? I haven't heard any particularly convincing answers. (Cleveland, yes, if we're calling them a contender.) Anyway, I didn't even bring that comparison up til pretty deep into this comment thread, and long after you claimed the article was "homerish," so I'm calling BS on that one.

 

You're basically arguing against positions that no one has stated. Maybe that's why you find them irrational.

 

 

Because baseball is a game of sample sizes my friend, and 137-85 weighs a lot more heavily than 0-5. They aren't remotely equivalent so they're not treated as such. Regardless of what people want to believe, there is NOT some magical formula for winning in the playoffs that's different from the regular season. The bats coming up short against Houston was not a failure of planning, that was an extremely well-built offense marred by injuries and bad performances.

 

 

 

The winning the last few seasons is because this FO built them to do so, but getting swept in 2 games by Houston, or 3 games by NY, or getting smashed in a WC game is just bad luck? I guess you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

Big swing and a miss on importance of sample sizes bud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except all the things I mentioned are actually trackable, measurable changes, not Spring Training puffery nonsense (but nice job conflating the two things). They’re right there on his Fangraphs page if you care to look for them.

In 11 starts. 66 innings.

 

Which is more likely, that a career 7 WAR pitcher has morphed into the second best pitcher in the AL? Or that a good pitcher had a hot streak that happened to cover 11 starts? And 9 of those starts were against four of the worst offenses in the game.

 

He's not a bad pitcher. If he stays healthy the Twins can probably expect 160 innings (more if Rocco allows it) with an ERA+ in the 105-110 range and 2-3 bWAR. But 11 starts in a crazy year shouldn't be enough to change anyone's opinion about what he was prior to the trade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The way I see it, the problem here is that you continue to grade Maeda's 2020 season using only the most superficial stats and a gut feeling, while ignoring what he actually did to improve over past seasons.

It has been widely written about and discussed that the Twins changed his approach to batters, particularly use of his changeup to opposite side hitters.

But to dig into the stats... this is out of all qualifying pitchers in MLB last season:

FIP - 10th
K% - 8th
BB% - 4th

Combine the K/BB into K-BB% and Maeda comes in fourth in all of baseball, only behind literally the best pitchers in the game last season (in order: Bieber, deGrom, Bauer).

Last season, Maeda improved on swing percentages in the zone and swing percentages outside the zone, while reducing contact (sometimes drastically) on those same swings. According to Fangraphs, every pitch type he threw last season with any regularity was positive value, which is pretty extraordinary and speaks to his control and command.

Long story short, the Twins took Maeda's pitch combination and when/where to throw them, tweaked them pretty heavily, and as a direct result, Kenta improved in almost every measurable way over his previous career numbers.

Is Maeda due to regress in 2021? I mean, probably... because almost all pitchers who pitch that well for a stretch are due to regress a bit. Will he regress to his career norms? Unlikely, because we can establish actual changes made and the corresponding improvement that went along with it. This wasn't a lucky season nor did he pitch over his head.

None of those stats/metrics/measurements account for the extreme unbalanced schedule of 2020, though. The central division teams exclusively played each other, and featured many of the worst hitting clubs in the game.

 

Check out RA9opp (Opponents' Runs Scored Per 9 Innings) at B-Ref. For the two central divisions, it was 4.38. For the rest of MLB, it was 5.13. And I don't think the central division pitchers were *that* much better than their east and west counterparts to explain that huge gap!

 

That's not to say Bauer, Maeda, Bieber, Darvish, etc. are bad pitchers, of course, or that they're no better than Keuchel or Kwang Hyun Kim (central division starters with 1.99 and 1.62 ERAs in 2020, respectively), or that they didn't make real improvements in 2020. But I think we have to take their 2020 performances with a healthy grain of salt right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of those stats/metrics/measurements account for the extreme unbalanced schedule of 2020, though. The central division teams exclusively played each other, and featured many of the worst hitting clubs in the game.

 

Check out RA9opp (Opponents' Runs Scored Per 9 Innings) at B-Ref. For the two central divisions, it was 4.38. For the rest of MLB, it was 5.13. And I don't think the central division pitchers were *that* much better than their east and west counterparts to explain that huge gap!

 

That's not to say Bauer, Maeda, Bieber, Darvish, etc. are bad pitchers, of course, or that they're no better than Keuchel or Kwang Hyun Kim (central division starters with 1.99 and 1.62 ERAs in 2020, respectively), or that they didn't make real improvements in 2020. But I think we have to take their 2020 performances with a healthy grain of salt right now.

I believe Maeda will regress, which I’ve said many times. What I don’t believe is that he will revert back to his career numbers with the Dodgers because “fluke season”.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He's not a bad pitcher. If he stays healthy the Twins can probably expect 160 innings (more if Rocco allows it) with an ERA+ in the 105-110 range and 2-3 bWAR. But 11 starts in a crazy year shouldn't be enough to change anyone's opinion about what he was prior to the trade.

Looks like Fangraphs projections are clustered right around 3 WAR for Maeda in 2021. And by bWAR in 2020, taking opponent offense quality into account to some degree, Maeda would have been a ~4.5 bWAR pitcher over 33 starts.

 

So maybe 3-4 bWAR is a good range to expect in 2021?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How many other AL contenders have a better #1 starter than Kenta Maeda? New York... anyone else? 

 

 

Honestly, I can't think of anything that says we have a homer problem more than arguing that our 33 year old, 7 WAR career pitcher, is the second best pitcher in the AL. 

 

I think this is the source of some confusion. Nick wasn't arguing that Maeda was the #2 pitcher in the AL, just that he was possibly the second-best #1 SP among AL contenders (in response to a post that said we needed an ace to go toe-to-toe with competitor's aces to break the 0-18 streak).

 

Presumably Nick is eliminating Bieber, as Cleveland seems committed to leaving contention (although there's more parity in the AL than the NL -- the 2nd best Fangraphs projected team win total in the AL right now is only 88).

 

Fangraphs projections would put Giolito behind Cole in such a ranking, and Ryu would edge Maeda too. A few others might be close.

 

But yeah, while aces are always nice to have, I don't think lack of an "ace" better than Maeda is a big issue. Unfortunately, the 0-18 thing isn't so easily explained by any one factor!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can you point to where I said the FO was incompetent or where I said they "stink?" You're attacking arguments that I'm not making. Proficiency and flaws aren't mutually exclusive when it comes to running a team. I assumed that was apparent.  

 

Sano, Polanco, Arraez, and Garver in the IF. Rosario and Kepler in the OF, and Buxton would've started over Marwin if healthy. Duffey, Rogers, and May were hands down the best bullpen arms. Berrios got the game 1 start. Every member of that group entering game 1 of the '19 ALDS was inherited by this FO. I'll stand by my opinion that the FO didn't walk into a doom and gloom scenario. What's the statistical disagreement as to whether the core contributions for the success over the last 2 seasons has come from inherited players?

 

I clearly was paraphrasing. Your stated position is that the current F.O. inherited a great situation and has made a very small number of positive moves of their own, while making a notably larger number of poor moves or non-moves. So how exactly do you characterize a front office that mostly makes bad moves? Feel free to pick your own term. "Below average"? "Mediocre"? "Not good"? The idea is the same.

 

So far as the specific players that the current F.O. inherited - How about the fact that almost all of those guys were starters/major contributors on the 2016 team that lost 103 games? How we can assume that core makes it so easy to field a winning team?

 

Ryne Harper, Blake Parker, Matt Magill, Lewis Thorpe, Kohl Stewart, Trevor Hildenberger, Adalberto Mejia, Fernando Romero, Sean Poppen, and Sam Dyson combined to throw roughly 40% of the bullpen innings in '19. Of that group Harper easily takes the top spot, he was serviceable, and he was DFA'd in August. You can point to aggregate bullpen stats and use Duffey, May, and Rogers to mask how ineffective the middle/back end of the pen was, but I wouldn't call that an objective take. The Twins DFA'd their closer in July, and a month later DFA'd Harper, who finished the year with the most innings behind the trio previously mentioned. Is that normal for one of the best bullpens in baseball? Were the Twins so rich with pitching talent that they simply didn't need the services of either pitcher? If that was the case, why were so many innings be allocated to inferior arms throughout the season? 

 

I hope I'm not the only one who notices the disparity between what you've demanded, and what you've provided in this thread.

 

In 2019, the Twins bullpen was #1 in MLB in FIP. It's simply not possible to say that 3 guys "masked" an ineffective bullpen. It wasn't an ineffective bullpen. It is mathematically impossible for an ineffective bullpen to be #1 in MLB in FIP, it simply can't be true under any circumstances. So your take here is objectively, inarguably wrong.

 

Now, you *could* argue that the front office doesn't deserve credit for the bullpen's performance. This goes back to your overall argument that the front office inherited a great situation. But there are serious problems with that argument as well, going back to the reality that the current front office got much better performances out of the same players, and the front office is responsible for the field staff and organizational development strategy.

 

So to remove credit from the current front office, you have to provide reasons to believe player performance would have been identical under the previous front office. 

 

So far as what is required to support one position versus another . . . I'm not making statements that fly in the face of objective reality. When I see that the Twins bullpen was #1 in MLB FIP in 2019 and #5 in MLB FIP in 2020, my baseline assumption is that the front office put together a good bullpen. No complicated arguments are required to support that position. If you argue that the bullpen with the #1 FIP was actually ineffective, well, you have more work to do. That's just common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will repeat what I said elsewhere. This starting rotation has the potential to be the best rotation the Twins had since the early 90s. Have we been so conditioned by seeing mediocre starters that we don't recognize a good staff when it finally surfaces?

 

Defense matters. If Buxton stays healthy*, with the other defensive upgrades the team made, the Twins pitchers will look a hell of a lot better from top to bottom.

 

*I just won the prize for having typed this phrase the 1,000,000th time on social media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I will repeat what I said elsewhere. This starting rotation has the potential to be the best rotation the Twins had since the early 90s.

Not that I'm criticizing the current rotation, but I'd be curious about your criteria for this determination.

 

By fWAR, the 2019 starting staff was better than any in recent memory, including 1991 and 1992:

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2020&month=0&season1=1980&ind=1&team=8,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=1980-01-01&enddate=2020-12-31&sort=1,d&page=1_50

 

But by RA9-WAR (which is like Fangraphs' version of bWAR, using actual runs scored and not FIP), 2004 is the best, with 2005 and 1991 close behind.

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=6&season=2020&month=0&season1=1980&ind=1&team=8,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=1980-01-01&enddate=2020-12-31&sort=1,d&page=1_50

 

Prorating 2020's fWAR and RA9-WAR to a full season would indeed top both of those figures, although that's not advisable due to the hyper-unbalanced 2020 schedule!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I clearly was paraphrasing. Your stated position is that the current F.O. inherited a great situation and has made a very small number of positive moves of their own, while making a notably larger number of poor moves or non-moves. So how exactly do you characterize a front office that mostly makes bad moves? Feel free to pick your own term. "Below average"? "Mediocre"? "Not good"? The idea is the same.

 

So far as the specific players that the current F.O. inherited - How about the fact that almost all of those guys were starters/major contributors on the 2016 team that lost 103 games? How we can assume that core makes it so easy to field a winning team?

 

 

In 2019, the Twins bullpen was #1 in MLB in FIP. It's simply not possible to say that 3 guys "masked" an ineffective bullpen. It wasn't an ineffective bullpen. It is mathematically impossible for an ineffective bullpen to be #1 in MLB in FIP, it simply can't be true under any circumstances. So your take here is objectively, inarguably wrong.

 

Now, you *could* argue that the front office doesn't deserve credit for the bullpen's performance. This goes back to your overall argument that the front office inherited a great situation. But there are serious problems with that argument as well, going back to the reality that the current front office got much better performances out of the same players, and the front office is responsible for the field staff and organizational development strategy.

 

So to remove credit from the current front office, you have to provide reasons to believe player performance would have been identical under the previous front office. 

 

So far as what is required to support one position versus another . . . I'm not making statements that fly in the face of objective reality. When I see that the Twins bullpen was #1 in MLB FIP in 2019 and #5 in MLB FIP in 2020, my baseline assumption is that the front office put together a good bullpen. No complicated arguments are required to support that position. If you argue that the bullpen with the #1 FIP was actually ineffective, well, you have more work to do. That's just common sense.

I said they inherited a fortuitous situation. There was a foundation in place to build around, and the contributions we've seen the last few seasons back that up. I believe I also mentioned that the outlook wasn't rosy at the major league level when the current FO took over. That isn't a "great," situation. Also the only "bad move," I've commented on is the Pressly trade. How a singular example equates to me characterizing the FO as making "mostly bad moves," is a mystery. It isn't paraphrasing if the sentiment being reworded is purposely distorted. That part in my last post where I said it's possible to criticize aspects of the FO without it being a scorching hot take on their tenure as a whole is important. I can't force you to acknowledge that though. 

 

In regards to the performance disparity between 2016 and now, it's pretty simple; young players grow. 

 

Let's be clear again; what I said was that using aggregate stats (which include high level performances from Rogers, Duffey, and May) can mask the inefficiencies in the middle/back end of the pen. If poking a hole in those aggregate bullpen stats, listing under performers who threw significant innings, or pointing out that some DFA candidates don't jive with a top tier bullpen designation complicates the argument beyond reason then I'm perfectly happy to leave this alone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I said they inherited a fortuitous situation. There was a foundation in place to build around, and the contributions we've seen the last few seasons back that up. I believe I also mentioned that the outlook wasn't rosy at the major league level when the current FO took over. That isn't a "great," situation. Also the only "bad move," I've commented on is the Pressly trade. How a singular example equates to me characterizing the FO as making "mostly bad moves," is a mystery. It isn't paraphrasing if the sentiment being reworded is purposely distorted. That part in my last post where I said it's possible to criticize aspects of the FO without it being a scorching hot take on their tenure as a whole is important. I can't force you to acknowledge that though. 

 

In regards to the performance disparity between 2016 and now, it's pretty simple; young players grow. 

 

You said: "It wasn't rosy at the major league level that particular season" (i.e., 2016). The team lost 103 games, so I think if anything that was an understatement. But still you said it was a "fortuitous" situation to inherit, which isn't exactly the same as "great," but it's not too far off either.

 

And, just to take a step back for a moment here - your original post was replying to me after I responded to another poster (and it was your first post in the thread). The post that I challenged - and that you defended - was strongly critical of the front office. In case you need a reminder, that post said that - 

 

[the front office hasn't] done anything to be anything other than a bully to the really crappy teams and can't win in the post-season.

 

Do you agree or disagree that the current front office hasn't done "anything" except beat up on some bad teams? You've had numerous posts in which to clarify/distinguish your own view, and you haven't done so.

 

Let's be clear again; what I said was that using aggregate stats (which include high level performances from Rogers, Duffey, and May) can mask the inefficiencies in the middle/back end of the pen. If poking a hole in those aggregate bullpen stats, listing under performers who threw significant innings, or pointing out that some DFA candidates don't jive with a top tier bullpen designation complicates the argument beyond reason then I'm perfectly happy to leave this alone. 

 

It's not that your argument complicates anything, it's just that you are wrong as a mathematical fact. The #1 or #5 bullpen by FIP cannot only have 3 good relievers. It's impossible because of the number of innings that each reliever throws. In 2019, the Twins had *7* relievers that threw 20+ innings with a FIP under 4. 

 

In 2020, Rogers, Duffey, and May combined to throw 29.4% of the bullpen's innings. The highest MLB FIP rank for that trio was Duffey at #24. Again, the inarguable mathematical fact is that the Twins bullpen was not top heavy.

 

I acknowledge there is some room to debate how good of a job the front office has done. But when you make claims like the #1 bullpen in MLB by FIP wasn't actually good, it casts a lot of doubt on whether you are being objective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You said: "It wasn't rosy at the major league level that particular season" (i.e., 2016). The team lost 103 games, so I think if anything that was an understatement. But still you said it was a "fortuitous" situation to inherit, which isn't exactly the same as "great," but it's not too far off either.

 

And, just to take a step back for a moment here - your original post was replying to me after I responded to another poster (and it was your first post in the thread). The post that I challenged - and that you defended - was strongly critical of the front office. In case you need a reminder, that post said that - 

 

[the front office hasn't] done anything to be anything other than a bully to the really crappy teams and can't win in the post-season.

 

Do you agree or disagree that the current front office hasn't done "anything" except beat up on some bad teams? You've had numerous posts in which to clarify/distinguish your own view, and you haven't done so.

 

 

It's not that your argument complicates anything, it's just that you are wrong as a mathematical fact. The #1 or #5 bullpen by FIP cannot only have 3 good relievers. It's impossible because of the number of innings that each reliever throws. In 2019, the Twins had *7* relievers that threw 20+ innings with a FIP under 4. 

 

In 2020, Rogers, Duffey, and May combined to throw 29.4% of the bullpen's innings. The highest MLB FIP rank for that trio was Duffey at #24. Again, the inarguable mathematical fact is that the Twins bullpen was not top heavy.

 

I acknowledge there is some room to debate how good of a job the front office has done. But when you make claims like the #1 bullpen in MLB by FIP wasn't actually good, it casts a lot of doubt on whether you are being objective.

I've repeated myself ad nauseam. I think the glaring issue with clarity is the liberal application of "not too far off," to most of what I've said. I'd start there first if you think my sentiment is muddy. 

 

The aspects of the post I agreed with are the ones I challenged you on. I'll do you the favor of assuming you understand that we have license to agree with particulars without necessarily endorsing every word typed. 

 

Ignoring the problems with using an aggregate bullpen stats we'll follow the parameters you set. 

Romo and Stashak starting throwing innings in August. Dobnak made 4 relief appearances over the course of a few weeks in September. If you want to argue Thorpe was solid, good luck with that. Littell made consistent appearances beginning in July and was solid from that point on. Ryne Harper made your FIP cut but he was demoted in August after trending down for a month. The Twins went 2/3 of the year without 4 of the players that met your criteria. Another one was in the bullpen half the season, and the last one was sent to AAA. I'm unsure how you look at that and not think the trio of May, Rogers, and Duffey carried the pen. If you want to cling to the "they are what the numbers say they are," argument, and remove any context that's fine. We'll just disagree on objectivity regarding the application of aggregate stats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ignoring the problems with using an aggregate bullpen stats we'll follow the parameters you set. 

Romo and Stashak starting throwing innings in August. Dobnak made 4 relief appearances over the course of a few weeks in September. If you want to argue Thorpe was solid, good luck with that. Littell made consistent appearances beginning in July and was solid from that point on. Ryne Harper made your FIP cut but he was demoted in August after trending down for a month. The Twins went 2/3 of the year without 4 of the players that met your criteria. Another one was in the bullpen half the season, and the last one was sent to AAA. I'm unsure how you look at that and not think the trio of May, Rogers, and Duffey carried the pen. If you want to cling to the "they are what the numbers say they are," argument, and remove any context that's fine. We'll just disagree on objectivity regarding the application of aggregate stats.

 

All bullpens include pitchers that miss time, are called up during the season, etc., etc. 

 

To illustrate in another way that your take here is logically invalid (as opposed to merely a different opinion) - here is the problem - 

 

Say that I hit my head and start believing your take to be correct. But at the same time, I become curious about not only the Twins bullpen, but also about bullpens throughout MLB.

 

For the 2019 season, what method would you advise me to use in order to rank all 30 bullpens? In other words, what fixed criteria could I rely on in order to determine whether one bullpen was better than another?

 

Surely you must be able to explain this - otherwise you wouldn't even realize that the Twins 2019 bullpen wasn't very good. But while you've told me the various deficiencies within the Twins' bullpen, what if a White Sox fan says that the Sox had a better bullpen than the Twins in 2019? How would I tell if he was correct? What would be the counter-argument?

 

Or is your argument that you just know a good bullpen when you see one, but have no idea what actually makes a bullpen good or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All bullpens include pitchers that miss time, are called up during the season, etc., etc. 

 

To illustrate in another way that your take here is logically invalid (as opposed to merely a different opinion) - here is the problem - 

 

Say that I hit my head and start believing your take to be correct. But at the same time, I become curious about not only the Twins bullpen, but also about bullpens throughout MLB.

 

For the 2019 season, what method would you advise me to use in order to rank all 30 bullpens? In other words, what fixed criteria could I rely on in order to determine whether one bullpen was better than another?

 

Surely you must be able to explain this - otherwise you wouldn't even realize that the Twins 2019 bullpen wasn't very good. But while you've told me the various deficiencies within the Twins' bullpen, what if a White Sox fan says that the Sox had a better bullpen than the Twins in 2019? How would I tell if he was correct? What would be the counter-argument?

 

Or is your argument that you just know a good bullpen when you see one, but have no idea what actually makes a bullpen good or not?

That fact has no bearing on the argument I've made. 

 

Do you believe FIP (a stat that treats every batted ball in play equally,) as an aggregate statistic provides an accurate measurement of how well a bullpen performs? Given the overall lack of consistency due to different usage rates, defined roles, specific batters faced, ect. there's a lot of room for variance. Aggregate stats aren't without value as a tool for comparison, but I disagree with your use in this particular instance.  

 

I'm certain my grievance was with the middle/back end of the pen and I definitely tipped my cap to the seasons May, Duffey, and Rogers had. As a reminder, what I took issue with was the notion that the Twins had pitching depth. Calling into question that depth doesn't equate to saying the Twins bullpen "wasn't very good." That must be another one of those "not too far off," things that conveniently continue to find their way into this back and forth. What was the bullpen for the first 2/3 of the season? Do you have a response for that paragraph in my last post, or is more hyperbole on the way?

 

Set your 20 inning limit, and check individual contributions within a bullpen. You can compare pitchers up and down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Set your 20 inning limit, and check individual contributions within a bullpen. You can compare pitchers up and down.

 

Compare them how? 

 

What if someone pitches well but is still sent down to AAA mid-year? What if someone gets hurt in August?

 

Telling me to just "compare pitchers" does nothing to help me know which bullpen was better than another. If you don't want to use FIP at all, fine, no problem, I know it's just one metric among others. 

 

Not only am I at a loss as to how the Twins bullpen in 2019 ranked within MLB, under your view, but it seems like you don't know either. Were they #5? #10? #15?

 

How can I evaluate how well the front office did with the bullpen if I have no idea where they even ranked?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Compare them how? 

 

What if someone pitches well but is still sent down to AAA mid-year? What if someone gets hurt in August?

 

Telling me to just "compare pitchers" does nothing to help me know which bullpen was better than another. If you don't want to use FIP at all, fine, no problem, I know it's just one metric among others. 

 

Not only am I at a loss as to how the Twins bullpen in 2019 ranked within MLB, under your view, but it seems like you don't know either. Were they #5? #10? #15?

 

How can I evaluate how well the front office did with the bullpen if I have no idea where they even ranked?

All information that's readily available. Spare me the facetiousness; you don't need a walkthrough on how to compare stats side by side. The beauty of baseball is that the abundance of available metrics makes this, and many future disagreements, an exercise in futility.    

 

Where they rank has nothing to do with the issue I brought up. Apparently you've chosen not to address it. Just using the innings limit you set for 2019, May, Rogers, and Duffey threw 50% of your qualified innings. I've pointed out the limited time nearly all of the players who made your FIP cut spent on the team. I've pointed to the DFA's. I've pointed to the underwhelming performances by pitchers at the back end. So again, tell me, what was that bullpen for the first 2/3 of the '19 season? There was so much depth that Blake Parker continued to be an ineffective closer for over month prior to being released? What's the explanation for the catalog of players whose performance disappointed during that time? Do you disagree that the performances of May, Rogers, and Duffey significantly buoyed that bullpen? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All information that's readily available. Spare me the facetiousness; you don't need a walkthrough on how to compare stats side by side. The beauty of baseball is that the abundance of available metrics makes this, and many future disagreements, an exercise in futility.    

 

Where they rank has nothing to do with the issue I brought up. Apparently you've chosen not to address it. Just using the innings limit you set for 2019, May, Rogers, and Duffey threw 50% of your qualified innings. I've pointed out the limited time nearly all of the players who made your FIP cut spent on the team. I've pointed to the DFA's. I've pointed to the underwhelming performances by pitchers at the back end. So again, tell me, what was that bullpen for the first 2/3 of the '19 season? There was so much depth that Blake Parker continued to be an ineffective closer for over month prior to being released? What's the explanation for the catalog of players whose performance disappointed during that time? Do you disagree that the performances of May, Rogers, and Duffey significantly buoyed that bullpen? 

 

I never said the Twins' 2019 bullpen was perfect. None are. 

 

But no, the information I requested is not readily available - I asked where you ranked the Twins' 2019 bullpen, and you refuse to answer. 

 

Truthfully, no facetiousness, I don't even know for sure if we agree or disagree. You won't share your actual assessment, and instead point to anecdotes that do nothing to evaluate the bullpen overall.

 

I just don't see how someone can say a front office fell short in a particular area and then not even say whether that area was good or bad. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I never said the Twins' 2019 bullpen was perfect. None are. 

 

But no, the information I requested is not readily available - I asked where you ranked the Twins' 2019 bullpen, and you refuse to answer. 

 

Truthfully, no facetiousness, I don't even know for sure if we agree or disagree. You won't share your actual assessment, and instead point to anecdotes that do nothing to evaluate the bullpen overall.

 

I just don't see how someone can say a front office fell short in a particular area and then not even say whether that area was good or bad. 

And I'm not forcing to you say as much. We've already agreed all teams have flaws. 

 

I don't think the Twins had a particularly great bullpen going into the trade deadline. I know they had 3 relievers performing at levels ranging from above average to elite. IMO Rocco was cautious to a fault when it came to protecting a number of relievers, and I can't blame him for likely lacking trust in some of them. If you look at value stats like fWAR or WPA it's that trio, and then everybody else. Obviously the innings disparity plays a role in that, but I think that disparity is also an indictment on the state of the bullpen for a large chunk of the season. I wouldn't define depth as simply having bodies to fill slots. If the Twins were flush with pitching depth then they wouldn't have turned to recent minor league signings like Morin, Magill, and Harper, especially early in the season when everybody is healthy. The demotion of Harper and Parker, who finished 4th and 6th respectively in terms of innings pitched, at or short after the trade deadline doesn't strike me as a move #1 ranked bullpens make. 

 

Where they rank isn't relevant to what I've pushed back on. The disagreement was about depth, and whether they were top heavy. I'm certain I've made that clear. If it'll move things along; based on how they ended the season, and how good May, Rogers, and Duffey were all year they were likely a top 1/3 pen when September ended. I certainly don't believe that's what they were for a good amount of the season, which is part of the reason I'm not a fan of the way you're using FIP.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...