A Hitter friendly Payroll

[Anorthagen]

The Star Tribune recently posted an article proclaiming that the Twins have always put a large amount of their payroll towards hitters, rather then pitchers. (Article here MLB Sunday Insider: Twins have a hitter-heavy payroll | StarTribune.com )

 

Which for the past decade has been true. With Mauer and Morneau making the most money, while everyone else is making under 10 million a year. It certainly makes sense, with the Twins inability to bring up strong pitching prospects while bringing up excellent hitting prospects such as Mauer, Mornaeu and soon Sano.

 

In my opinion, ya the Twins are definatly an offensive minded team and their certainly payroll shows it.

[nicksaviking]

Pitchers are more injury prone which makes them risky investments and the Twins are extrodinarily conservative and avoid risks at perhaps unmatched levels.

[drjim]

Pitchers are more injury prone which makes them risky investments and the Twins are extrodinarily conservative and avoid risks at perhaps unmatched levels.

 

This is true but the more important factor is that the Twins haven't really had a starting pitcher worth investing huge money in since Santana. There is much to criticize with the package they received (or the fact they probably should have just kept him and let him walk) but they were right to not give him huge money based on long term health concerns. Outside of him, who else should the Twins have paid?

[Oxtung]

This is true but the more important factor is that the Twins haven't really had a starting pitcher worth investing huge money in since Santana. There is much to criticize with the package they received (or the fact they probably should have just kept him and let him walk) but they were right to not give him huge money based on long term health concerns. Outside of him, who else should the Twins have paid?

 

There's been a lot of good pitchers they could have gone out and gotten over the years but they were automatically ruled out because they weren't already Twins pitchers. Why the Twins are only willing to pay big money to players that came up through the system versus FA's is beyond my comprehension skills.

[kab21]

There's been a lot of good pitchers they could have gone out and gotten over the years but they were automatically ruled out because they weren't already Twins pitchers. Why the Twins are only willing to pay big money to players that came up through the system versus FA's is beyond my comprehension skills.

 

This really isn't true. The Twins have had a deep rotation of homegrown pitchers until recently. Usually you don't go out and spend a lot on something that is an organizational depth. Especially when the Twins have until recently been operating with a limited budget.

[nicksaviking]

This is true but the more important factor is that the Twins haven't really had a starting pitcher worth investing huge money in since Santana. There is much to criticize with the package they received (or the fact they probably should have just kept him and let him walk) but they were right to not give him huge money based on long term health concerns. Outside of him, who else should the Twins have paid?

 

The Twins should not have been in the Santana situation in 2007 to begin with. They had a 25-year-old, left-handed Cy Young Award winner and only bought out one free agent year. Instead of a four year deal it should have been six. That was way too conservative and an unwise baseball move.

[Oxtung]

This really isn't true. The Twins have had a deep rotation of homegrown pitchers until recently. Usually you don't go out and spend a lot on something that is an organizational depth. Especially when the Twins have until recently been operating with a limited budget.

 

You mean average to below average pitchers? Sure. In the 5 seasons since Santana left the Twins have had 3 pitchers with a seasons of >110 ERA+. 2012 Diamond, 2008 & 2011 Baker, 2010 Liriano.

 

On the flip side we have had 6 pitchers with a season <90 ERA+. 2008 Hernandez, 2009 Perkins, 2009, 2011 & 2012 Liriano, 2010 & 2012 Blackburn, 2011 Duensing and 2012 Hendricks.

 

For the record that is 9 seasons bad to 4 seasons good. We certainly could have used upgrades. The fact that the organization chose not to spend money that way is kind of the point. It was shown once again this season that the Twins won't spend big money, no matter how badly the rotation needs to be upgraded, because they, or at least Ryan, is philosophically opposed to it.

[kab21]

Results are different than expectations. they entered 2011 with a healthy Liriano, Baker and pavano. In addition they had Slowey, Duensing and Blackburn available to fill out the back end with Gibson close in AAA. Other seasons the outlook was similar. They might have been missing the ace at the top but they weren't adding that in FA.

[Oxtung]

Twins starting pitching ranks in the AL sorted by ERA:

 

2008: 8

2009: 12

2010: 5

2011: 12

2012: 14

 

Looks to me like every year except 2011 we should have expected to need better pitching.

 

Just because the Twins had 5 average to below average pitchers they could run out there doesn't mean they should run them out there. The Twins clearly weren't going to win any championships with the motley crew they assembled the last 5 seasons.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't think it's any secret the front office feels far more comfortable handing out long contracts to position players but not pitchers.

 

And honestly, I can't blame them. Pitchers are bad risks for a long term contract. For every Sabathia, you'll get three Barry Zitos. Look at the Mauer contract versus the Santana contract. The Twins made the right move, though they ran into some pretty awful luck with Morneau. But no one can predict that kind of freak occurrence.

 

With that said, they don't need to scrape the barrel, either. There is a large middle ground that should be used to shore up deficiencies but they seem reluctant to do even that.

[kab21]

Twins starting pitching ranks in the AL sorted by ERA:

 

2008: 8

2009: 12

2010: 5

2011: 12

2012: 14

 

Looks to me like every year except 2011 we should have expected to need better pitching.

 

Just because the Twins had 5 average to below average pitchers they could run out there doesn't mean they should run them out there. The Twins clearly weren't going to win any championships with the motley crew they assembled the last 5 seasons.

 

Again you are using results instead of projections. The Twins had Liriano and Baker expected to head the rotation with Slowey and Blackburn as solid starters during those years. And there were still others providing depth behind them. Yes, it would have been awesome to buy a front of the rotation starter in FA but that was just dreaming.

[old nurse]

Twins starting pitching ranks in the AL sorted by ERA:

 

2008: 8

2009: 12

2010: 5

2011: 12

2012: 14

 

Looks to me like every year except 2011 we should have expected to need better pitching.

 

Just because the Twins had 5 average to below average pitchers they could run out there doesn't mean they should run them out there. The Twins clearly weren't going to win any championships with the motley crew they assembled the last 5 seasons.

Out of the shambles of the 2009 staff came a rotation that was top 5 in ERA. The core was assembled through the previous year. For 2012 do you expect the same staff to go downhill or return to the performance level they showed in 2010? Hindsight gives you the answer.

[Thrylos]

ERA?

 

how about quality starts and win-loss record?

/sarcasm.

 

The Twins led the AL in xFIP in 2010.

[The Wise One]

ERA?

 

how about quality starts and win-loss record?

/sarcasm.

 

The Twins led the AL in xFIP in 2010.

 

Sadly you have to put sarcasm in there for people to understand you are dogging the pitching component of the thread. But yet if the comment were truely sarcastic they would have a reason to give you a vacation.

[The Wise One]

Themakeup of a team would inlude lower paid 4th and 5th starters, a mop up arm as well as a few other cheap arms. The payroll of a team without a stud pitcher should be well weighted to the hitters side of the ledger.

[johnnydakota]

This really isn't true. The Twins have had a deep rotation of homegrown pitchers until recently. Usually you don't go out and spend a lot on something that is an organizational depth. Especially when the Twins have until recently been operating with a limited budget.

 

Home grown yes, quality? not

[Oxtung]

Again you are using results instead of projections. The Twins had Liriano and Baker expected to head the rotation with Slowey and Blackburn as solid starters during those years. And there were still others providing depth behind them. Yes, it would have been awesome to buy a front of the rotation starter in FA but that was just dreaming.

 

If we can't use stats from previous seasons to determine how a pitcher might perform in the future then what are we doing discussing anything on this board? I have shown that the Twins over the last 5 years have both had poor individual performances and team performances by their starting pitchers. Yet the FO has chosen to do nothing about it.

[Oxtung]

I don't think it's any secret the front office feels far more comfortable handing out long contracts to position players but not pitchers.

Agreed and Ryan said as much this off season both with his words and with his actions.

 

And honestly, I can't blame them. Pitchers are bad risks for a long term contract. For every Sabathia, you'll get three Barry Zitos. Look at the Mauer contract versus the Santana contract. The Twins made the right move, though they ran into some pretty awful luck with Morneau. But no one can predict that kind of freak occurrence.

I'm not sure it's as black and white as that. There have been a ton of bad hitter contracts too. Going forward I wouldn't be surprised if there as many bad hitter contracts as pitcher contracts.

 

With that said, they don't need to scrape the barrel, either. There is a large middle ground that should be used to shore up deficiencies but they seem reluctant to do even that.

This was really my larger point before I got bogged down with Kab21. I'm not sure anyone is asking for an ace but in the last 5 years (cumulative) we haven't even had an above average pitcher in the starting rotation and for the most part they aren't even close.

[Mike Sixel]

Shouldn't the title be "owner friendly payroll"?

[jay]

I'm not sure anyone is asking for an ace but in the last 5 years (cumulative) we haven't even had an above average pitcher in the starting rotation and for the most part they aren't even close.

 

It would be awfully interesting to see some analysis on the effectiveness of FA contracts by tier, maybe even broken down between hitters and pitchers. We see a lot of contracts for the top tier guys that extend into years where they aren't expected to be nearly as productive. Can we assume contracts for the middle tier (or lower) are more efficient?

[Mike Sixel]

Why only FA? the question is, why is it better to sign your own players, than other teams' players? What makes that better?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Why only FA? the question is, why is it better to sign your own players, than other teams' players? What makes that better?

 

I don't know if it's "better" per se but at least with a home-grown player or a player who has played with the team for some time, their performance is a known quantity. You don't have to worry about league-switching, park adjustments, or any of that other stuff that impacts how a player performs.

[kab21]

If we can't use stats from previous seasons to determine how a pitcher might perform in the future then what are we doing discussing anything on this board? I have shown that the Twins over the last 5 years have both had poor individual performances and team performances by their starting pitchers. Yet the FO has chosen to do nothing about it.

 

Using past performances is part of projections but it's not the only part. The Twins haven't had a great starting staff in the last 5 years but their issues until recently have been the front end starter. The Twins have had several good middle and bottom of the rotation arms. I'm pretty sure every Twins fan has wanted the team to add an ace but that's not all that easy. Target Field isn't a blank check for the team.

 

Additionally Liriano's disappointing TJ recovery and Gibson's TJ set this team back fairly far as far as adding very good starters to the team. Gutierrez, Hunt, Bashore and Wimmers completely flopping didn't help at all either.

[Guest USAFChief]

ERA?

 

how about quality starts and win-loss record?

/sarcasm.

 

The Twins led the AL in xFIP in 2010.

In looking at past performance, I'd say ERA, won-loss record and even quality starts tell you a lot more than xFIP. Which would you rather have, looking backward at the end of a season: a high xFIP with a 15-5 W/L record, or a low xFIP and a 5-15 record? If you're trying to project what might occur in the future, xFIP may be useful, and I'd go so far as to say probably is more useful than W/L record, perhaps even more useful than ERA. But your post is about the 2010 season, as viewed from 2013. What DID happen is infinity percent more relevant than some theoretical projection of what should have happened.

[Mike Sixel]

I'd say w-L for one player is a terrible way to look back, or forward. It doesn't tell you much of anything about how that player played.

[nicksaviking]

I don't know if it's "better" per se but at least with a home-grown player or a player who has played with the team for some time, their performance is a known quantity. You don't have to worry about league-switching, park adjustments, or any of that other stuff that impacts how a player performs.

 

While I agree with this, I don't think this is the motivation behind re-signing their own guys vs signing free agents. Nearly every free agent the Twins have signed in the last two years has come directly from the NL after all.

 

I think for Ryan and the Twins, it has more to do with them over-valuing what they have and under-valuing what other teams have. It's probably not the wisest way to assemble talent but I'd bet a deeper analysis would show this is common thinking among other GM's too.

[Guest USAFChief]

I'd say w-L for one player is a terrible way to look back, or forward. It doesn't tell you much of anything about how that player played.

It might be terrible looking forward, although you'll see a lot of pitchers in the HOF with a lot of wins under their belt. But looking back, I don't give a rat's behind HOW someone won 15 games, I only care that they did. I don't particularly care that the 1987 Twins weren't statistically the best team in baseball. I care that they won the WS. I doubt a lot of people think that team's xFIP is how they should be judged.

[jay]

It might be terrible looking forward, although you'll see a lot of pitchers in the HOF with a lot of wins under their belt. But looking back, I don't give a rat's behind HOW someone won 15 games, I only care that they did. I don't particularly care that the 1987 Twins weren't statistically the best team in baseball. I care that they won the WS. I doubt a lot of people think that team's xFIP is how they should be judged.

 

The conversation is about how a pitching staff performed relative to another. That would make xFIP perfectly relevant.

 

Comparing the win-loss record of the 94-win Twins in 2010 to the 63-win Twins in 2011 would be silly. You'd be completely missing the fact that the Twins scored a full run more per game in 2010 (781 vs 619) while the xFIP for the pitching staff was actually only .4 runs per game worse (3.93 vs 4.33).

 

You can make some generalized assumptions because obviously better pitching leads to more wins, but evaluating the performance of a staff on win-loss completely ignores every other aspect of the game -- offense, defense, the randomness of run support, etc. The impact is magnified if you look at individual pitchers. Cliff Lee was a 3.10, 200+ inning pitcher last year with 6 wins... but we still know he's an elite pitcher of which the Twins don't have.

[StormJH1]

I've never heard this logic applied to any team before, let alone the Twins, but I don't find it particularly useful. What you are paying a player in a given year has much more to do with the player's age and service time than if they are actually productive. For example, the Yankees have an extra $25 million-ish invested in A-Rod ("offense"), but he's not playing this year, so what does that even mean.

 

Likewise, if not for the Mauer and Morneau outliers, the Twins will arguably spend less on offensive players due to the fact that they have a lot of young, promising position players. When the Twins were paying veterans like Baker, Blackburn, Liriano, and Pavano, we had more money in pitching, but the rotation was terrible.

[Mike Sixel]

What? A player does not WIN a game.....If a relief pitcher comes in, gives up two runs to give up the lead in his one inning of pitching, and his team comes back and wins, he gets the "win" stat, even though he utterly stunk at doing his job.

 

"Win" as a stat for one player does not say how well he did his job at all. Not one bit. It is the best measure how a team did in the past, but tells you little to nothing about how one player did.