Short Starts Are Not a Minnesota Twins Thing

[insagt1]

I have been watching baseball for 7 decades. I can only count one, possibly two times a pitcher was pulled early from a game where he was throwing a no-hitter. And this year it has happened several times, (relatively speaking) sometimes as late as the 7th inning. What that means is that exceptional personal achievement is no longer rewarded in a sport where you play everyday for 6 months. BAseball has always been about stats, even though the old tried and true stats are being reduced to nothing. Watching a team parade out 5, 6, and 7 pitchers every game (it seems) diminishes the overall enjoyment of the game. (I know thats an subjective statement...so I'll leave it as it applies to me)

You still show me (and you can't anymore) a pitcher who wins 15-20 games, has an ERA of 2.00-2.50, strikes out more than he walks, and finishes what he starts several times...and I'll show you someone I would make an extra effort to watch every 5 days. And most those games would be well played and fun to watch.

One stat I have always thought was practically impossible to understand was the year when Bob Gibson finished with that 1.12 ERA..yet he suffered 8 losses! You just have to wonder how your team could lose that many when your pitcher basically gives up 1 run per game.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, Dave Overlund said:

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy allowing the Twins to keep payroll costs down. If you build it (a competitive roster), they will come. 

When the Twins win, fans show up. Same for the Wild and Wolves. The Vikings are the exception to the rule, they will always have fans show up. 

From 2002-2009, the Twins averaged more fans per game every year at the ****** Metrodome than they have averaged this year at bright shiny Target Field in a summer with near perfect weather. Why? Because they were actually competitive. 

In fact, the 2009 team averaged nearly 30,000 fans a game at the Dome, a number not reached at Target Field since the novelty wore off in 2013.  They came close in 2019, a year in which they were competitive. Not just 'win a crappy division' competitive, but actually competing for a WS trophy.

I believe if the ownership invested in the product more, for instance extending Berrios and paying some of the core to stick around long term, the fans would respond in kind. 

 

If they drew another 5,000 fans for every single game and those fans spent $50 each that would be $20M which would allow for less than an additional $18M spent after payroll taxes and benefits.  There are teams that literally double the Twin's revenue and quite a few with $100-$200M revenue advantage.  If spending X would produce X plus something, they would spend more. This has got to be the most misguided argument on this site and it keeps coming up year after year.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, Mark G said:

So, the amount you spend depends on the amount you take in.  I would never argue with that.  But, using that argument, doesn't the product have to improve if you want the amount coming in to improve?  And you have to improve the product before you can improve the amount coming in, not waiting for more to come in before you improve the product.  We are 20th in MLB in attendance because we are in that range as a product people will pay to see.  It might be very much an example of the chicken or the egg question, but if we don't improve the product, we won't see an improvement in the amount coming in.  

Bottom line is, they can spend as much or as little as they want.  Even if they lose money as an organization each and every year, the value of the organization continues to grow much faster than the amount of money they lose, so, again, they can spend as much or as little as they want.  You were spot on when you said the product depends on the amount coming in, so we need to improve the product.  It may cost in the short term, but it comes our in the end.  

I could say the same thing about spending for every person on this site.  How would you react if I suggested your unwillingness to spend more than you make each year was just you being cheap? Baseball fans want to believe these teams are a hobby and profit does not matter.  We want to think they should not care which is exceptionally naive.  They are less profit focused than corporations but their valuation is highly correlated to profitability.  They care!

[Squirrel]

33 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

2 hours ago, Mark G said:

So, the amount you spend depends on the amount you take in.  I would never argue with that.  But, using that argument, doesn't the product have to improve if you want the amount coming in to improve?  And you have to improve the product before you can improve the amount coming in, not waiting for more to come in before you improve the product.  We are 20th in MLB in attendance because we are in that range as a product people will pay to see.  It might be very much an example of the chicken or the egg question, but if we don't improve the product, we won't see an improvement in the amount coming in.  

Bottom line is, they can spend as much or as little as they want.  Even if they lose money as an organization each and every year, the value of the organization continues to grow much faster than the amount of money they lose, so, again, they can spend as much or as little as they want.  You were spot on when you said the product depends on the amount coming in, so we need to improve the product.  It may cost in the short term, but it comes our in the end.  

 

33 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I could say the same thing about spending for every person on this site.  How would you react I have suggested your unwillingness to spend more than you make each year was just you being cheap? Baseball fans want to believe these teams are a hobby and profit does not matter.  We want to think they should not care which is exceptionally naive.  They are less profit focused than corporations but their valuation is highly correlated to profitability.  They care!

The topic of this thread is pitchers and pitcher usage not spending. I get the related side discussion, but please stick to the topic and start your own thread on spending if that’s the path you want to go down.

[Rigby]

3 hours ago, Mark G said:

Simon and Garfunkel should have used the name Bert Blyleven in the "Mrs. Robinson" song.    

Kitty and Camilo might fit the tune better...

[bean5302]

10 hours ago, Squirrel said:

If short starts are how it’s going to be, and that was/is their plan, then you absolutely need a BP to withstand that. The FO is egregious in their philosophy one way or the other. If you are going to defend the FO for limiting their starters by saying everyone’s doing it, then they need to be blasted for the construction of their BP. They built a BP on the cheap. You cannot do one without the other. If you are going to limit your starters you need a BP filled with pitchers who can not only withstand the workload, but who can shut down your opponents and actually get the job done. That’s been my complaint all year. Many posters are calling for Rocco to be fired because of pitcher usage. That isn’t going to change a thing when the FO has put this system into place and then has given the manager the BP they have. Of course it’s a disaster.

A good manager should adapt and push back on the front office if the strategy is failing or quit at the end of the season. At this point, Baldelli not pushing back on the strategy and managing in a different manner shows he either believes in the failing philosophy or he lacks the confidence to push back. My guess is he truly believes in the philosophy which I don't.

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, IndianaTwin said:

I'd say that our lineup also needs Joe Dimaggio, but he's dead. 

Then he'd fit right in.

Rimshot gif

[Squirrel]

39 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

A good manager should adapt and push back on the front office if the strategy is failing or quit at the end of the season. At this point, Baldelli not pushing back on the strategy and managing in a different manner shows he either believes in the failing philosophy or he lacks the confidence to push back. My guess is he truly believes in the philosophy which I don't.

It doesn’t matter if he believes it or not. The FO didn’t put together a BP that fits with their philosophy. That’s my point. We don’t have ace pitching and a rotation like the Yankees or the Dodger, nor can we likely afford it. Okay, so go with with a bunch of 3s, 4s and 5s, track what they are doing and pull them when their numbers start looking iffy.  They won’t go as deep, which is fine, but then we must have a BP. I’m not necessarily in favor or opposed to the strategy, HOWEVER, to accomplish this you have to have a shut down, durable BP. That’s what’s egregious, that we don’t knowing that we would need it. And that comes to play before the season begins. Before Baldelli steps into the dugout to manage the first game. The FO went into the season with this philosophy, then didn’t staff it accordingly. The number of times Baldelli could have let the pitchers go a little deeper does not equal, not even close, the number of times the pitchers couldn’t or shouldn’t go deeper and we don’t have a BP to close it out. If Baldelli pushes back and says ‘No, I’m not doing that’ is the moment they part ways, and then we get the manager in who will follow that philosophy. That’s why I don’t think the manager makes a huge difference. While Baldelli isn’t completely blameless, this philosophy and the lack of a durable, shut the door BP, lies squarely at the feet of the FO.

[bean5302]

5 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

It doesn’t matter if he believes it or not. The FO didn’t put together a BP that fits with their philosophy. That’s my point. We don’t have ace pitching and a rotation like the Yankees or the Dodger, nor can we likely afford it. Okay, so go with with a bunch of 3s, 4s and 5s, track what they are doing and pull them when their numbers start looking iffy.  They won’t go as deep, which is fine, but then we must have a BP. I’m not necessarily in favor or opposed to the strategy, HOWEVER, to accomplish this you have to have a shut down, durable BP. That’s what’s egregious, that we don’t knowing that we would need it. And that comes to play before the season begins. Before Baldelli steps into the dugout to manage the first game. The FO went into the season with this philosophy, then didn’t staff it accordingly. The number of times Baldelli could have let the pitchers go a little deeper does not equal, not even close, the number of times the pitchers couldn’t or shouldn’t go deeper and we don’t have a BP to close it out. If Baldelli pushes back and says ‘No, I’m not doing that’ is the moment they part ways, and then we get the manager in who will follow that philosophy. That’s why I don’t think the manager makes a huge difference. While Baldelli isn’t completely blameless, this philosophy and the lack of a durable, shut the door BP, lies squarely at the feet of the FO.

I understand what you're saying there and I agree with you 100%. This failure is on the front office, 100% if Baldelli is just essentially following absolute orders he disagrees with. It's on Baldelli to push back or quit if he disagrees with the philosophy. It's his career and this will be tied to him now. He either lacks confidence to stand up for what he believes or he believes in what appears to be a foolish philosophy.

If there aren't absolute orders and if the plan isn't working, it's time to ratchet up the number of innings the starters pitch like every other team in baseball with better or worse rotations than the Twins. There is no good reason for 3 of our 4 main starters to rank in the bottom 6% of all starters in baseball in terms of pitches thrown per start when the bullpen can't handle the strain. Adapt or die.

[Squirrel]

15 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I understand what you're saying there and I agree with you 100%. This failure is on the front office, 100% if Baldelli is just essentially following absolute orders he disagrees with. It's on Baldelli to push back or quit if he disagrees with the philosophy. It's his career and this will be tied to him now. He either lacks confidence to stand up for what he believes or he believes in what appears to be a foolish philosophy.

If there aren't absolute orders and if the plan isn't working, it's time to ratchet up the number of innings the starters pitch like every other team in baseball with better or worse rotations than the Twins. There is no good reason for 3 of our 4 main starters to rank in the bottom 6% of all starters in baseball in terms of pitches thrown per start when the bullpen can't handle the strain. Adapt or die.

I’m sure he agrees in part, or he wouldn’t have a job here, but he still has to make in game decisions with the roster he’s given and I don’t think he has been given an adequate roster. And if not Baldelli, we’d still have the same kind of manager, imo. I just don’t think he matters as great deal. Granted, who knows where we’d be without all the injuries, but then that leads us back to the FO and injury risk assessment. Yes, Baldelli could be less ‘rigid’, but I don’t think that ‘rigidity’ has cost us nearly as much as an inadequately staffed BP. 

[tony&rodney]

11 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

With the limited sample size, pulling the pitcher seems to be the most advantageous thing to do.

.... except the starting pitchers are not facing 18 batters. They get pulled after facing the top 3-5 batters third time through the order.

[dxpavelka]

15 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

TK said it so it must be true.  Apparently, not a single one of those big companies spending millions on data analytics and the systems / infrastructure that drive them don't have a single person that understands this premise.  All of those guys with ivy league MBAs and the analytics experts that work for them understand that data is useless for predicting outcomes or developing strategies. How the rest of the world operates can be telling.

Yep

[dxpavelka]

15 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

That has little to do with the length of their starts and more to do with the number of starts.  In other words, it has nothing to do with length of starts and much more about durability in this particular season.  

Maybe that durability and number of starts are a product of the length of their starts.....

[dxpavelka]

14 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

That is about health and staying off the IL, not ability.

And maybe that health and staying off the IL is a result of how  they are being handled.....

[dxpavelka]

15 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Actually, odds are, Gardy was actually the more "enlightened" of the two when it comes to the "analytics" side of stuff.

And yet TK's got the rings.

[Riverbrian]

12 hours ago, ashbury said:

Then he'd fit right in.

Rimshot gif

I just want to applaud the typing of "Rimshot gif" instead of... you know... attaching a gif. 

 

[wabene]

On 9/7/2022 at 11:06 PM, Yawn Gardenhose said:

The title of the article is blatantly wrong. I realize what you're implying - that short starts are a league-wide trend - but the plain fact is, short starts are very much a Minnesota Twins thing. 

Again with the flawed interpretation of the third-time-through stats...sigh. Let me try this again. 

Let's use Archer for example. This season he's faced 15 batters three times in a game. Read that closely - that's not "15 starts he's gone through the order three times." In total in 2022, he's had *15 plate appearances* against a batter who's facing him for the third time. This is such a comically small sample size that it's fundamentally insignificant from a data standpoint. Furthermore, each of these 15 plate appearances were against the #1 or #2 hitters in an opponents' lineup - typically where teams' best players hit. 

So again, you're comparing data sets of once through an order and twice through an order - based on facing 9 batters in those samples - against a data set where a pitcher is facing 2 out of the 9 hitters, and 2 of the *best* hitters to boot. Of course the numbers are going to look lopsided when you're comparing two entirely different data sets and assuming a meaningful equivalence between them.

I consider this to be a rudimentary error of data analysis. And yet here we are, watching the Twins completely throw away a chance to win perhaps the worst division in the wild-card era largely because of this demonstrably flawed philosophy. "Total system failure," I'd say. 

I agree with some points here especially that the third time through at bats are primarily against the best hitters. That makes a lot a sense. Using Archer as your example doesn't make sense. Have you watched him pitch this year? Every start by the 3rd or 4th inning he completely loses the ability to find the plate. He would be the last pitcher you should extend. 

[DJL44]

I wonder how much game theory enters into this. Baldelli's moves are very predictable. That makes this team very easy to gameplan against. You know the Twins aren't going to attempt to steal bases or hit-and-run which means your starting pitcher doesn't even need to throw over to first. You know the starting pitcher is only going 5 innings so even if you're behind you can wait him out and go after the bullpen. You know the bullpen relievers are going to stick to their top 2 pitches (usually fastball / slider). They only have one lefty (Thielbar) on the pitching staff and you'll see him at most 2 innings per series so you can load up your lineup with lefthanded bats. 

[MTV]

With Archer it’s completely acceptable, he can’t go far into games and it’s plain as day to see. Bundy maybe, although he’s been looking better as of recent and has been doing his job. If you have to pitch Smeltzer or Sanchez yes, but with Ryan and Gray I draw the line. Ryan’s success in a day is usually decided in the first 4 innings, he’s either great or being blown up. If he’s succeeded, keep him in. As for Gray, pitch him at least 6 innings. He wants to go deeper and he’s clearly had enough success overall, you acquired him to be good so let him lead you for most of the game. Only take them out if they’ve thrown 90+ Pitches. Same with Varland, his debut was ruined because they took him out in the 6th. Let him pitch if he’s having success

[Murph]

21 hours ago, jun said:

Please leave Devon Smeltzer, Jovani Moran, Cole Sands, Ralph Garza Jr and Brad Peacock out.

They DFA'd Davis yesterday!  And if he clears wavers, and they re-sign him, it'll make my point.

[Murph]

23 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

They generate less than league average revenue.  What do you expect them to spend?  It just astounds me that so many people can't figure out the amount that can be spent is a product of the amount coming in.    

Well - then the Pohlads shouldn't own a Major League Baseball team.  (Believe me, the Pohlads can afford it.)

Maybe we shouldn't have a major league franchise here.  

[Murph]

46 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I wonder how much game theory enters into this. Baldelli's moves are very predictable. That makes this team very easy to gameplan against. You know the Twins aren't going to attempt to steal bases or hit-and-run which means your starting pitcher doesn't even need to throw over to first. You know the starting pitcher is only going 5 innings so even if you're behind you can wait him out and go after the bullpen. You know the bullpen relievers are going to stick to their top 2 pitches (usually fastball / slider). They only have one lefty (Thielbar) on the pitching staff and you'll see him at most 2 innings per series so you can load up your lineup with lefthanded bats. 

Yep.  ALL TRUE.  There's nothing but predictability in Rocco's game.

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I just want to applaud the typing of "Rimshot gif" instead of... you know... attaching a gif. 

 

jokerclapping.gif

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

jokerclapping.gif

Infinite Amount of Monkeys with an infinite amount of time making infinite amount of gifs. gif

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Infinite Amount of Monkeys with an infinite amount of time making infinite amount of gifs. gif

 

[Riverbrian]

53 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

 

I think Davey is touching Mickey, which has led to Mickey touching Peter. 

Michael has a hat on. 

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I think Davey is touching Mickey, which has led to Mickey touching Peter. 

Michael has a hat on. 

Ick.