Correia: Giving credit where it is due

[jimbo92107]

I take off my ball cap and wave it madly for Kevin Correia. Yay! Nobody expected him to be a shutdown guy, we just hoped for a solid starter and an innings eater, and so far that's just what he looks like. This Twins bargain basement pitching staff has a chance to be major league average. Yay!

[cmathewson]

Don't feed the troll.

[Twins Twerp]

He has been very solid. He pitched 7 solid innings against what will end up being one of if not the best lineup in the league (most expensive anyways). Of course we find a silver lining that he always starts out great in April. I didn't read that anywhere this summer...No one stood up and said, "this is a terrible deal but at least he'll be good in April." Nope, we just threw our arms up with disgust about this trade. This is a professional who knows how to prepare for the season and is ready to go on day 1. Also Mauer has been mashing. The way he is hitting, I would bet he hits 20 HR's this year.

[Riverbrian]

maybe just say that next time?

 

Historical stats are used all the time to try and form a pattern. The last three years are usually the most relevant. Using them sometimes and not other times seems like a strange policy. I don't see how pointing out his performance the last three April's prior to this one is any issue, whatsoever...especially with pitchers when they say to start the season pitchers are usually ahead of hitters. Seems April would be a telling month.

 

Next we'll be cutting out pre all-star/post all-star stats. Away games and home games.

Nothing wrong with looking at EVERYTHING. Because YOU don't see any chronogical pattern to a players success or failure based on certain time frames doesn't mean there isn't. Certainly doesn't mean the info isn't worth sharing.

You say 'In 2011... Kevin Correia had a 3.40 ERA on June 1 so it actually lasted longer than April.' And that's fine, but what that doesn't say is that his ERA was under 3.00 in April and over 4.00 in May to make that 3.40 ERA.

 

Then you say 'Matter of fact... He was at 3.73 on July 3.'..yeah, but now he's posted an ERA of 4.46 in June to raise it to that 3.73. If anything, looking at his July 3rd numbers without looking at anything else would make one believe he'd been pitching at that 3.73 rate for the first three months, it wouldn't tell you he had a very good April and not so good May and a bad June. If anything it shows how relevant pointing out April's stats was in the first place.

 

1. Try

 

2. I have lots of Strange Policy's

 

3. It's actually interesting unless you try to present it as an issue.

 

4. Doing away with Splits is an extreme response to my statement that I believe that I will struggle to find a chronological link on the majority of players.

 

5. I agree that there is nothing wrong with looking at everything. I'm not sure that you have looked at everything. I know that I haven't.

 

6. I wouldn't call it a bad june... He's not Clayton Kershaw... A 4.46 ERA will be a nice addition to the Twins after last year.

 

7. Your April example would be solid... If only he didn't have other stretches of good starts throughout the year and you can guarentee me that he will be strong again in April 2014.

[ashbury]

Einstien said: "anyone can look like a genius if you use a small enough sample"!

 

If Einstein was so smart, how come he got "i before e" wrong, TWICE?

[Badsmerf]

Livan Hernandez and Ramon Ortiz looked good after three starts as well.

Ramon Ortiz had a 2.57 ERA through April..... then the wheels fell off. Unfortunately he posted a 10.48 ERA in May. It was a fun ride Ramon...

[Boom Boom]

In 2008, through his first 3 games, Livan Hernandez had a 2.57 ERA.

 

I get the feeling that this is going to be a rollercoaster and we've just started climbing the hill.

[ThePuck]

1. Try

 

2. I have lots of Strange Policy's

 

3. It's actually interesting unless you try to present it as an issue.

 

4. Doing away with Splits is an extreme response to my statement that I believe that I will struggle to find a chronological link on the majority of players.

 

5. I agree that there is nothing wrong with looking at everything. I'm not sure that you have looked at everything. I know that I haven't.

 

6. I wouldn't call it a bad june... He's not Clayton Kershaw... A 4.46 ERA will be a nice addition to the Twins after last year.

 

7. Your April example would be solid... If only he didn't have other stretches of good starts throughout the year and you can guarentee me that he will be strong again in April 2014.

 

We're using the Twins barometer for good and bad. I guess if we're doing that, 4.46 is good :-) Though we have to consider than a 4.46 ERA in the NL. It's worse than his overall ERA for the season (4.21) and that 4.21 ERA translated to an OPS+ of like 88.

 

No, I haven't looked at everything, but I doubt I'd have much of an issue with someone showing me some stats I hadn't seen...even if they didn't seem to mean much to me...or even if they presented an opposite viewpoint to the one I had. I certainly wouldn't just blow them off or give the guy who gave them flak for presenting them. The more info the better, IMO. That was my point.

 

In any event, for my part, I think we've gotten as far as we're going to go with this.

 

I am extremely happy with what he's done so far...apparently me mentioning his April history was off-limits to some, so I apologize for that.

[ashbury]

Of course he should since he got a 2 yr deal. I will be very happy if puts up a <4.25 ERA this year. that's what he is.

 

You don't ask much for your $4.5M this year, do you? Just better than league-average ERA for 200 innings? And since his salary bumps to $5.5M next year, that should dictate further improvement to <4.00 I suppose.

[cmathewson]

I would be cautious to compare him to Ortiz or Hernandez. They are good examples of why not to get too hyped up in April. But the trajectories of those years don't necessitate that Correia will have the same or similar drop off. It just makes it slightly more likely that he will. Put them in the context of every 30-something sinkerballer with his history in the modern age, and you might get a clearer picture. It's still not good, but it's not Ramon Ortiz bad either. Livan is a better comp.

[ashbury]

An even closer look:

2011- in his 4th start of the year: Correia walked 4 batters.

2012- in his 4th start of the year: Correia walked 5 batters.

2013- 4th start is up next: Trending looks like a lock at 6 walks against Chicago on Saturday.

 

SABR is looking for submissions to the Baseball Research Journal if your study pans out.

[cmathewson]

You don't ask much for your $4.5M this year, do you? Just better than league-average ERA for 200 innings? And since his salary bumps to $5.5M next year, that should dictate further improvement to <4.00 I suppose.

 

If he can have a 4.25 ERA and 200 innings, he'd be worth all $10 mil or so. They could DFA him in the first week of 2014 and they'd still get their money's worth.

[Riverbrian]

We're using the Twins barometer for good and bad. I guess if we're doing that, 4.46 is good :-) Though we have to consider than a 4.46 ERA in the NL. It's worse than his overall ERA for the season (4.21) and that 4.21 ERA translated to an OPS+ of like 88.

 

No, I haven't looked at everything, but I doubt I'd have much of an issue with someone showing me some stats I hadn't seen...even if they didn't seem to mean much to me...or even if they presented an opposite viewpoint to the one I had. I certainly wouldn't just blow them off or give the guy who gave them flak for presenting them. The more info the better, IMO. That was my point.

 

In any event, for my part, I think we've gotten as far as we're going to go with this.

 

I am extremely happy with what he's done so far...apparently me mentioning his April history was off-limits to some, so I apologize for that.

 

Puck... No need to apologize... It's just debate.

 

I hope you can agree that I tend to be a little optimistic and you tend to be a little more pessimistic. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle but neither of us are fair and balanced like Fox News is.

 

I guess Correia is gonna be my new Ben Revere. I'll just say that... Correia wasn't my first choice but during the off season... I looked at his game log and I wasn't afraid of the signing anymore and Twins Daily was still burning over it. I think he will be alright and if I'm wrong... It won't be the 1st or 7th time.

 

With the exception of July and August of 2011. He gave the Pirates a reasonable chance to win the game during a majority of his starts... Our offense is capable of taking it from there... (Hopefully).

 

I think Vodkadave started a nice thread here and your April compliment seemed backhanded and that was following the OVER 6IP and OVER 7IP comment from a other thread that I thought was painted to your point and not completely fair to KC.

 

In the end... We probably won't change each others mind and that's OK. This place would be boring without conflicting view points.

 

Its all cool.

[Riverbrian]

SABR is looking for submissions to the Baseball Research Journal if your study pans out.

 

I know... What a moment for me... I'm just worried about those uncontrolled variables. Ron Gardenhire is an uncontrolled variable. He may be heading straight for 6 walks but Gardy could pull him early and we will never know.

 

I'm worried that Gardy doesn't understand or care about the science of my new project.

 

I'm hoping Gardy reads this and gives Correia a fair shot at 6 free passes.

[Riverbrian]

SABR is looking for submissions to the Baseball Research Journal if your study pans out.

 

BTW... Why are using the crabby looking chick avatar. We won yesterday... You need something appropriate for a win... Drag that girl out after losses only.

[IdahoPilgrim]

This thread seems to emphasize the same divides/debates that exemplify all our discussions, in that there are two basic mindsets being espoused.

 

Position A: Correia has looked better than expected...let's celebrate a little.

 

Position B: Correia has looked better than expected...but it won't last.

 

Maybe both can be true?

[ThePuck]

This thread seems to emphasize the same divides/debates that exemplify all our discussions, in that there are two basic mindsets being espoused.

 

Position A: Correia has looked better than expected...let's celebrate a little.

 

Position B: Correia has looked better than expected...but it won't last.

 

Maybe both can be true?

 

For me it's about being cautiously optimistic. Position C, if you will: Correia has looked very good and, despite his recent history, I hope he can continue and make a lot of people, including me, eat crow...cause he's a Twins and we want all of our guys to do well.

[ThePuck]

Puck... No need to apologize... It's just debate.

 

I hope you can agree that I tend to be a little optimistic and you tend to be a little more pessimistic. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle but neither of us are fair and balanced like Fox News is.

 

I guess Correia is gonna be my new Ben Revere. I'll just say that... Correia wasn't my first choice but during the off season... I looked at his game log and I wasn't afraid of the signing anymore and Twins Daily was still burning over it. I think he will be alright and if I'm wrong... It won't be the 1st or 7th time.

 

With the exception of July and August of 2011. He gave the Pirates a reasonable chance to win the game during a majority of his starts... Our offense is capable of taking it from there... (Hopefully).

 

I think Vodkadave started a nice thread here and your April compliment seemed backhanded and that was following the OVER 6IP and OVER 7IP comment from a other thread that I thought was painted to your point and not completely fair to KC.

 

In the end... We probably won't change each others mind and that's OK. This place would be boring without conflicting view points.

 

Its all cool.

 

The OVER 6IP and OVER 7IP was, in no way, a shot on KC, but rather my explanation as to why I didn't think send Correia out was the right move. And there was more to it than just that. Correia pitched a very good game that game, even with the runs he ended up giving it up. I'm not sure what I said could be unfair to him when it wasn't about him but rather the decision Gardy made. I didn't slam Correia for giving up the runs.

[Riverbrian]

The OVER 6IP and OVER 7IP was, in no way, a shot on KC, but rather my explanation as to why I didn't think send Correia out was the right move. And there was more to it than just that. Correia pitched a very good game that game, even with the runs he ended up giving it up. I'm not sure what I said could be unfair to him when it wasn't about him but rather the decision Gardy made. I didn't slam Correia for giving up the runs.

 

Its no biggie... It was just the way it read.

 

I don't remember the exact wording but you typed something along the lines. Correia never pitched OVER 7IP in 2012 and only pitched OVER 6IP 5 times.

 

I got what you were saying but I felt that it painted Correia poorly because pitching OVER 6IP only 5 times sounds terrible.

 

He pitched at least 6 innings 19 times in 27 starts. Two different ways of phrasing it and each leaves a different impression.

 

If you go through all MLB pitchers... you'll find that a large portion of starting pitchers do not go 7 innings very often. Correia is no different than the entire starting pitching group.

 

Besides IP doesn't matter... It's the pitch count that they watch. He threw OVER 84 pitches... 15 times last year.

[ThePuck]

The OVER 6IP and OVER 7IP was, in no way, a shot on KC, but rather my explanation as to why I didn't think send Correia out was the right move. And there was more to it than just that. Correia pitched a very good game that game, even with the runs he ended up giving it up. I'm not sure what I said could be unfair to him when it wasn't about him but rather the decision Gardy made. I didn't slam Correia for giving up the runs.

 

To expand on that, I thought it was the right move to pull him last night as well, regardless of pitch count. So, in both situations, I figured it was the right move. I thought it was right this time, for the same reasons it was right the other time. What I'm curious about is why Gardy would leave him in with a 1 run lead, but pull him with a 3 run lead? I'm hoping it's just about pitch count, and I hope that was the reason, because if not then it's baffling to me.

[ThePuck]

Its no biggie... It was just the way it read.

 

I don't remember the exact wording but you typed something along the lines. Correia never pitched OVER 7IP in 2012 and only pitched OVER 6IP 5 times.

 

I got what you were saying but I felt that it painted Correia poorly because pitching OVER 6IP only 5 times sounds terrible.

 

He pitched at least 6 innings 19 times in 27 starts. Two different ways of phrasing it and each leaves a different impression.

 

If you go through all MLB pitchers... you'll find that a large portion of starting pitchers do not go 7 innings very often. Correia is no different than the entire starting pitching group.

 

Besides IP doesn't matter... It's the pitch count that they watch. He threw OVER 84 pitches... 15 times last year.

 

But, again, it was about the decision...it wasn't meant as a slam to him. It was me trying to use all the available info I had.

 

Here's the thing. Managers make the call on when to pull a pitcher...he decides who plays and who doesn't. I fault no player for going out there and doing their job to the best of their ability. Some just have more ability than others. It's like Punto. He was overused by Gardy, IMO; however, that's not on Punto. What's Punto gonna say? NO I don't deserve this much playing time?

[jokin]

Correia is what he is. He won't be an attractive trade option. It would be a surprise to get any kind of significant prospect for him. The good news is that he's separating himself from the list of simply terrible veteran pitchers that the Twins have brought in over the years. Of course he should since he got a 2 yr deal. I will be very happy if puts up a <4.25 ERA this year. that's what he is.

 

That's why I said "impossible dream" and referenced my sarcastic post made at the time of the signing, referencing Ryan's genius in recognizing talent "better than the numbers would indicate" that would ultimately lead to a great trade for a prospect before the deadline. Still, the Twins would be foolish to, once again, not consider all options for trading guys at their highs and especially this year when the competitive balance in baseball could mean more teams than usual desperate to bolster their lineups for a second half in-it-to-win-it run. Any C+/B- pitching prospect or reclamation project with at least a chance to contribute at the ML level would suffice in return.

[cmathewson]

That's why I said "impossible dream" and referenced my sarcastic post made at the time of the signing, referencing Ryan's genius in recognizing talent "better than the numbers would indicate" that would ultimately lead to a great trade for a prospect before the deadline. Still, the Twins would be foolish to, once again, not consider all options for trading guys at their highs and especially this year when the competitive balance in baseball could mean more teams than usual desperate to bolster their lineups for a second half in-it-to-win-it run. Any C+/B- pitching prospect or reclamation project with at least a chance to contribute at the ML level would suffice in return.

 

Hopefully he pitches well enough for your scenario to work, and at least one guy in Rochester pitches well enough to warrant taking his place in the rotation. Pelfrey is probably the first guy to be traded in such a scenario. If both are in that position and there are two arms ready, we really are getting into fantasy land.

[fairweather]

No one should be surprised by Correia starting hot. He has a history of early season success throughout his career. What is surprising to me is how bad Worley looks. Not even necessarily his results, but he fails the eye test. When I watch him pitch I don't see anything that resembles a quality off speed pitch. That makes me afraid he's the new Blackburn that I accused Correia of being. It's still too early to draw conclusions about these new starters but I'm finding what I thought to be the pecking order of the 3 new starters was all bass ackwards thusfar. LOL That's why we love baseball.

[ashbury]

TWhat I'm curious about is why Gardy would leave him in with a 1 run lead, but pull him with a 3 run lead?

 

We're talking about the game where he carried a shutout into the 8th, versus last night, right? I thought we hashed that other game out as far as humanly possible last week, but again, to me a 1-0 game isn't just any one-run lead. I'm pretty stats-oriented, but I don't believe you have a bubble gum card with stats on the mound, you have a human being with human variability. There's his years of track record to go by, but also the fact that on this night he's got a shutout going; if you and your staff believe he's "hitting his spots" better than usual, then maybe it's not a fluke, although fatigue also starts to be a factor. If on top of that you, as manager, have information about your bullpen, you may conclude that on this night your best shot at preserving the lead in the 8th inning is with the pitcher who is already working. I don't like that there was no one at all warming up until too late, but sending him out is a very defensible choice, just in terms of in-game tactics. When you take into account season-long strategy, it's even hard to second guess that specific choice, IMO. In last night's game, maybe Burton was considered at full speed, maybe the home runs and close-call rallies earlier in the game led Gardy to think less of KC's performance; different situation, different choice. Who knows, maybe with that 1-0 lead there really was no high-probability option, while with the 5-2 lead yesterday pretty much anyone but Anthony Slama would have done the job.

 

Yeah, I like to pull the Slama troll-bait now and then.

[jokin]

Hopefully he pitches well enough for your scenario to work, and at least one guy in Rochester pitches well enough to warrant taking his place in the rotation. Pelfrey is probably the first guy to be traded in such a scenario. If both are in that position and there are two arms ready, we really are getting into fantasy land.

 

Gibson is the obvious #1 on the replacement list. After that it's a crapshoot, Meyer could pitch back-to-back no-nos and the earliest call-up would still be September, I suspect May would be in a similar scenario. And even if they could make good trades for both of the aforementioned, I do wonder if they would risk going up to 3 months of the season with Gibson (restricted innings), Deduno, DeVries and Hendriks as the only potential replacements for the 2.

[jokin]

We're talking about the game where he carried a shutout into the 8th, versus last night, right? I thought we hashed that other game out as far as humanly possible last week, but again, to me a 1-0 game isn't just any one-run lead. I'm pretty stats-oriented, but I don't believe you have a bubble gum card with stats on the mound, you have a human being with human variability. There's his years of track record to go by, but also the fact that on this night he's got a shutout going; if you and your staff believe he's "hitting his spots" better than usual, then maybe it's not a fluke, although fatigue also starts to be a factor. If on top of that you, as manager, have information about your bullpen, you may conclude that on this night your best shot at preserving the lead in the 8th inning is with the pitcher who is already working. I don't like that there was no one at all warming up until too late, but sending him out is a very defensible choice, just in terms of in-game tactics. When you take into account season-long strategy, it's even hard to second guess that specific choice, IMO. In last night's game, maybe Burton was considered at full speed, maybe the home runs and close-call rallies earlier in the game led Gardy to think less of KC's performance; different situation, different choice. Who knows, maybe with that 1-0 lead there really was no high-probability option, while with the 5-2 lead yesterday pretty much anyone but Anthony Slama would have done the job.

 

Yeah, I like to pull the Slama troll-bait now and then.

 

To me, it was all about the Burton. And no, no bite here on the Slama-bait;)

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm glad he's done well thus far, but 3 starts does not a season make. I seem to remember Livan Hernandez starting well too.

[ThePuck]

We're talking about the game where he carried a shutout into the 8th, versus last night, right? I thought we hashed that other game out as far as humanly possible last week, but again, to me a 1-0 game isn't just any one-run lead.

 

Riverbrian brought up a conversation had about that game..info I posted about that game..I was just rolling with the conversation. Additionally, in this case, I was comparing the two situations. I was past questioning what he did in that previous game, but instead was focusing on comparing the situations.

[Riverbrian]

But, again, it was about the decision...it wasn't meant as a slam to him. It was me trying to use all the available info I had.

 

Here's the thing. Managers make the call on when to pull a pitcher...he decides who plays and who doesn't. I fault no player for going out there and doing their job to the best of their ability. Some just have more ability than others. It's like Punto. He was overused by Gardy, IMO; however, that's not on Punto. What's Punto gonna say? NO I don't deserve this much playing time?

 

I understood that you didn't have a problem with Correia directly on the night in question.

 

Your comment was clear to me (I think) to be about Gardy.

 

You had a problem with Gardy because he didn't seem to understand what you felt Correia was capable of... An opinion seemingly partly based on IP examples from the past couple years that you provided.

 

That led to the OVER 6IP statement that you made and while accurate, I felt it was a bit push poll-ish and not good for Correia perception.

 

Pollster: How would you feel if the Twins signed a pitcher that only pitched over 6IP 5 times?

 

Pollster: How would you feel if the Twins signed a pitcher that pitched 6IP 19 times out of 27 starts.

 

Then today... paraphrasing it was "he historically pitches good in April"... While accurate when looking at the past two years... It leaves the impression that it's just April... He's gonna get scored upon big time in May and beyond... That may not be what you were saying... but looking at both examples... I decided to respond and debate.

 

That's all... No biggie... I just like my Eggs sunny side up.

 

And on top of of a Hamburger... Covered in Cheese... Next to a plate of Buffalo Wings.