Are Long Starts Coming for the Twins?

[jmlease1]

13 hours ago, Seth Stohs said:

I just don't understand why people are so worried about this. If healthy, which we all know if a big IF, they're going to be allowed to go 95-105 pitches most times out. How many innings will that be? Hopefully 6-7, even 8. 

It's really more about a philosophical divide. There's a number of people who are particularly agitated about this because they don't like the ways the game of baseball has changed and evolved over the past 20-30 years. Longer starts (along with things like more hit & run plays, stolen bases, bunts, and a focus on hitting for average over hitting for power) are part of what they believe makes baseball "better". Others are less concerned about it.

[stringer bell]

I think the title of this thread should have been edited. It should read "Are Longer Starts Coming for the Twins?". Without question, I think the Twins starters will work more innings in 2023, mostly because they all have a full spring training this year and there will be fewer short starts due to ineffectiveness.

i do find it interesting how far Twins pitchers were allowed to stretch out in Florida. I don't think anyone threw as many as 80 pitches in an outing, so I would think the five starters would max out at 6 innings and about 80 pitches if they are effective. Opponents' starters were working deeper into the game during the last week and I would expect these guys could get close to 100 pitches in their next game, so pretty close to maximum as early as April

[Woof Bronzer]

44 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

I would have to dig to find it, but this was a huge talking point when Gray complained last summer.  The Twins and the Reds before us all kept his starts short because the numbers backed it up.

I wouldn't be surprised if the OPS was down last year, but we are talking about a very small sample size, 

I mean, you said everybody knows this and the numbers show it...maybe it's not as simple and obvious as you stated?

And yes, when pitchers aren't allowed to pitch 3rd time through the order much, the sample size is going to be small. 

[jmlease1]

3 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Do we know this for sure though?   Forgive the vague numbers, but last season the Twins had 6 or 7 starts where the starter was pulled in the 5th or earlier with 75 or less pitches after giving up 0 or 1 hit.  If there wasn't a predetermined yank point, with all due respect, the manager should have joined the trainer in the bread line!

I'm pretty sure you're overstating the number of no-hitters the Twins had going last year, but whatever. My point was there was no predetermined yank point for the staff as a whole. Each pitcher is going to have a different calculus even if the results ended up being similar.

Here's an example: Chris Archer was on a general pitch limit because of his health and effectiveness. He would get pulled from a start when he neared that limit regardless of how well he was pitching, because of that limit. Joe Ryan didn't have a limit anywhere near that. The Twins were perfectly comfortable letting him run up 90-100 pitches. He got pulled from a game after 7 innings of no-hit ball, though. Why? Because he was at 106 pitches, and was slated to start against Cleveland for his next start in a game that at the time was looked at as being critical to win the division. (We weren't totally out of it by then). If it had been the last week of the season and we were already eliminated, would they have let him go longer and try for the no-hitter? We'll never know for sure, but it seems likely. The decision on when to pull Joe Ryan wasn't predetermined before the game.

let's look at Sonny Gray, since he always gets thrown into this conversation: he threw 75 or less pitches 6 times last season. 1 of those he had an injury, 2 he was making his first start coming off injury, and the remainder were games where he wasn't particularly effective (or just bad). he got pulled when he'd only given up 1 hit twice: once when he pulled up lame early in the year, and the other late in the season when he had walked 4 guys and was at 90 pitches through 5. 

[Fire Dan Gladden]

32 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

I mean, you said everybody knows this and the numbers show it...maybe it's not as simple and obvious as you stated?

And yes, when pitchers aren't allowed to pitch 3rd time through the order much, the sample size is going to be small. 

Sample size being relative because of how little usage he had in that regard last year...

I have been using the quote of 10+ ERA 3rd time through the order.  I can't find that source and I look to be incorrect.  However, I did find this article from last year:

https://www.si.com/fannation/bringmethesports/twins/sonny-gray-makes-it-clear-that-he-wants-to-pitch-deeper-into-games

Quoting from the article:

2016: 8.66 ERA third time through an order
2017: 5.66 ERA
2018: 3.27 ERA
2019: 6.12 ERA
2020: 6.30 ERA
2021: 7.25 ERA

The ERA may not be 10, but it is still ugly.  Dude has no business pitching the third time through the order.  He should be happy the Twins recognize this.  By protecting him and pulling him out early, he is staying effective and will generate a bigger contract next year.

[Woof Bronzer]

9 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

The ERA may not be 10, but it is still ugly.  Dude has no business pitching the third time through the order.  He should be happy the Twins recognize this.  By protecting him and pulling him out early, he is staying effective and will generate a bigger contract next year.

But the sample size for those ERAs is also small.  Why count a small sample size when it supports your agenda and disregard it when it doesn't?  And it's going to be skewed when you are only going partially through the lineup the 3rd time - you don't have 7/8/9 patsies to pad your ERA.  

If Gray hits the 3rd time through the order and he's cruising with a decent pitch count, he should absolutely keep pitching!  This is what drives me nuts about the rigid kind of analytics being advocated here.  Cherrypick stats that fit the narrative, discard those that don't, and - yes, the dreaded "manage by spreadsheet" approach where it's predetermined to yank a pitcher after 2 times through the order, regardless of performance or game context.  

[Woof Bronzer]

38 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

I'm pretty sure you're overstating the number of no-hitters the Twins had going last year, but whatever. My point was there was no predetermined yank point for the staff as a whole. Each pitcher is going to have a different calculus even if the results ended up being similar.

 

Ok, I get what you are saying.  I think we are saying the same thing.  I definitely don't think there was a staff wide yank point all year - I mean, I sure hope not :)  But I still don't like the approach of saying "X starter is going 5 today" or "2 times through the order only" before the game starts.  Let the game play out, and react accordingly.  I didn't think this would be so controversial, sorry I wasn't more clear and thanks for the conversation!

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, stringer bell said:

I think the title of this thread should have been edited. It should read "Are Longer Starts Coming for the Twins?". Without question, I think the Twins starters will work more innings in 2023, mostly because they all have a full spring training this year and there will be fewer short starts due to ineffectiveness.

i do find it interesting how far Twins pitchers were allowed to stretch out in Florida. I don't think anyone threw as many as 80 pitches in an outing, so I would think the five starters would max out at 6 innings and about 80 pitches if they are effective. Opponents' starters were working deeper into the game during the last week and I would expect these guys could get close to 100 pitches in their next game, so pretty close to maximum as early as April

Good point to get ahead of the inevitable threads after they aren't at 120 pitches in April.  It'll be fun to chat about in game threads but this is a topic that we will need a couple months of data to know anything. 

[Jocko87]

54 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

The ERA may not be 10, but it is still ugly.  Dude has no business pitching the third time through the order.  He should be happy the Twins recognize this.  By protecting him and pulling him out early, he is staying effective and will generate a bigger contract next year.

Maybe, the other teams have that data too.  Without the chance to try to go deeper he has no way to improve on those numbers.  He can force the issue by pitching well early and should focus on that. 

[Fire Dan Gladden]

48 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Maybe, the other teams have that data too.  Without the chance to try to go deeper he has no way to improve on those numbers.  He can force the issue by pitching well early and should focus on that. 

I would agree that someone like Joe Ryan should be given the opportunity to pitch later into games.  You need to know what you have.  But came up through the Twins system, he knows where the limits are.  Someone like Sonny Gray, who has an extensive history of not pitching well 3rd time through does not really deserve that opportunity.  Or, at the very least, should have the shortest of short leashes

 

[Fire Dan Gladden]

1 hour ago, Woof Bronzer said:

But the sample size for those ERAs is also small.  Why count a small sample size when it supports your agenda and disregard it when it doesn't?  And it's going to be skewed when you are only going partially through the lineup the 3rd time - you don't have 7/8/9 patsies to pad your ERA.  

If Gray hits the 3rd time through the order and he's cruising with a decent pitch count, he should absolutely keep pitching!  This is what drives me nuts about the rigid kind of analytics being advocated here.  Cherrypick stats that fit the narrative, discard those that don't, and - yes, the dreaded "manage by spreadsheet" approach where it's predetermined to yank a pitcher after 2 times through the order, regardless of performance or game context.  

You asked for proof, I gave you proof, and yet you argue still...  There is no cherry picking, the numbers are what the numbers are. 

The question you need to need to ask yourself is this:
You need two innings pitched in the middle of the game. Who do you choose:
Pitcher A:  6.50 ERA
Pitcher B:  3.50 ERA
We all know the answer here.  Yes, sometimes pitcher A will get the call.  But wow, what a huge roll of the dice when you have better options.

I understand what I am saying here doesn't fit your narrative, but using analytics didn't just start yesterday.  Managers have been using analytics for decades.  What has changed is the types of analytics being used.  Where do you think LOOGYs came from or pinch hitting a RH batter to go against a LH pitcher?  How come nobody complains about analytics being used to derive the defensive shift or launch angle or spin rate?  How about the decision to shade outfielders a certain direction?  Sorry, but this is still all analytics, just of a different sort.

Using analytics gives your team a better chance to be successful.  Otherwise they would not be used.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Whitey333]

Isn't it interesting how starting pitchers pitch fewer innings but get top dollar?  To  pitch only 5-6 innings once or maybe twice per week and yet make millions seems so backwards.  Bullpens are becoming so important as the pitch up to half the innings in many games.  With Gray, Maeda, and Mahle playing on their last contract year maybe we need to concentrate some on a stronger bullpen.