Article: When Will Gibson Get a Chance?

[Mike Sixel]

I agree with cmat......it isn't "is he the perfect Kyle Gibson he will eventually be", the question is "is he better than the guys at the MLB leve, and will promoting him hurt his development".

 

I don't see how he is not likely better than 1-3 current starters, one of whom is clearly not a starter but a bullpen guy. We can debate the "hurt his development" stuff, but he's 25, and a top prospect. I'd argue that if he can't handle the stress of MLB pitching by now, we have bigger problems.

 

Other than just saying it like fact, what is the argument that:

 

a: he is not better than what they have

b: his development will be hurt - if this is your argument, what is your argument, other than just stating this?

[Steve Lein]

So they'll take a risk with their top pitching prospect and give him more work than he's had in years just to save a AAA bullpen? That is insane.

 

Chief, I understand it's correlation and not causation. But you just don't take these kinds of risks with your top pitching prospect, not in AAA.

 

It's plausible at least that Gibson's arm was less than 100%. They did move him back a day because he reported soreness. in his bullpen session prior to the start.

 

Just a sidebar as I don't agree with 114 pitches being the "risk" that you do, given the circumstances. To elaborate:

 

To me, the 100 pitch mark is stupid. It shouldn't be about the total pitches, but how they got to that number - and hope that's actually how most teams approach it.

 

For instance, in this 9 inning complete game for Gibson, 114 pitches averages out to 12.67 pitches per inning, which is a pretty damn good and low pitch count/inning number, and one that is not overly stressing the starter, even if he throws all 9 innings. Where running up the pitch total comes into play as stressing them, is when they end up throwing 20+, or 30+ pitches in an inning, such as what has happened with Pelfrey and Worley. In games like that, your starter is getting pulled in the 4th or 5th inning with 80+ or 90+ pitches thrown already, so he's averaging 20+ pitches per inning.

 

Gibson's pitch count by inning went like this if you're wondering (by gameday pitch-by-pitch): 18, 16, 12, 11, 12, 13, 7, 12, 13 (which is actually 116 pitches). He didn't have any long innings, the worst being at the beginning of the game when it doesn't matter as much because he's fresh, and was very consistent throughout. In a game like that, I think that starter definitely should be able to push 100+ pitches without worry. If he had approached 20+ pitches in an inning later in the game, I would share the risk assessment, but not here.

 

It's the same premise as to why guys can throw harder when they're expected to only throw an inning in the bullpen, they won't be exposed (usually) to extended stress on the arm.

[Halsey Hall]

I'm in the I don't think he's ready camp. I'd like to see a couple of good starts back to back before thinking of bringing him up. If someone comes up now, I'd bring Deduno. At least you know what you're getting, and he'd give us a chance to win every time he throws. Actually, I'm not convinced Gibson ever will be MLB ready. He could be another Adam Johnson, Willie Banks type. Oh, he'll get his chance, but what he does with it is far from determined.

[Nick Nelson]

At this point, he's being treated just like every minor leaguer, developing and trying to get better until the need arises. Pelfrey and Worley aren't leaving the rotation any time soon.

 

This represents a double-standard that I really don't understand. Gibson's being treated like any other minor-leaguer and needs to put together consistently dazzling stats to merit a call-up despite obviously having the talent to pitch in the majors?

 

Fine. But why aren't Pelfrey and Worley being treated like every other marginal major-league starter? They've each had eight starts and neither has shown signs that they deserve to be in the rotation right now. Why is it exactly that neither is getting bumped any time soon? No one's saying that the team should give up on either one of them completely – in both cases the struggles may be attributable to short-term arm recovery issues – but this notion that they're entrenched regardless of their performance is very bothersome.

[Steve Penz]

No one's saying that the team should give up on either one of them completely – in both cases the struggles may be attributable to short-term arm recovery issues – but this notion that they're entrenched regardless of their performance is very bothersome.

 

No scholarships. Agreed.

[Thrylos]

I'd argue that Andrew Albers (Lefty, 2.75 ERA, 1.250 WHIP, 8.5 K/9, 3.8 K/BB, 22.8 K%) deserves a call up before Gibson (3.92 ERA, 1.260 WHIP, 7.9 K/9, 3.2 K/BB, 21.4 K%) if someone is to get up from Rochester to replace Hernandez. And yes he is not on the 40 man roster, but Wood and Butera are. Move Wood to the 60-day DL and you are set.

 

Re: Fien. He is one of the 3 Twins' pitcher with above league average K% (Perkins and Burton are the other 2) The worst pitcher in the Twins' pen right now is Roenicke (1.322 WHIP ,with about .230 BABIP, 6.9 K/9 and 1.67 K/BB)

 

When will Gibson play for the Twins? Maybe in August if he does not have too many innings and the Twins trade a few starters, otherwise 2014.

[John Bonnes]

I can't get too worked up about not promoting Gibson - the "no scholarships" thing should apply to him, too. Let's be honest - he hasn't exactly been kicking the door down. One could make a case that Deduno (or even Walters) should be promoted ahead of him, if it's based strictly on performance.

 

However, I'm officially intrigued by making Pedro Hernandez a left-handed reliever. His splits are astounding. The questions is which reliever do you send down for him. The obvious answer is Pressley, but he's a Rule 5 pick. Next on the list might be Roenicke, IMHO.

 

One last point - I think Pelfrey's time is limited. The Twins often make changes between mid-May and the beginning of June each year. I won't be shocked if Pelfrey isn't on this team one way or the other by June 1. I'll be a little surprised if he is.

[cmathewson]

Just a sidebar as I don't agree with 114 pitches being the "risk" that you do, given the circumstances. To elaborate:

 

To me, the 100 pitch mark is stupid. It shouldn't be about the total pitches, but how they got to that number - and hope that's actually how most teams approach it.

 

For instance, in this 9 inning complete game for Gibson, 114 pitches averages out to 12.67 pitches per inning, which is a pretty damn good and low pitch count/inning number, and one that is not overly stressing the starter, even if he throws all 9 innings. Where running up the pitch total comes into play as stressing them, is when they end up throwing 20+, or 30+ pitches in an inning, such as what has happened with Pelfrey and Worley. In games like that, your starter is getting pulled in the 4th or 5th inning with 80+ or 90+ pitches thrown already, so he's averaging 20+ pitches per inning.

 

Gibson's pitch count by inning went like this if you're wondering (by gameday pitch-by-pitch): 18, 16, 12, 11, 12, 13, 7, 12, 13 (which is actually 116 pitches). He didn't have any long innings, the worst being at the beginning of the game when it doesn't matter as much because he's fresh, and was very consistent throughout. In a game like that, I think that starter definitely should be able to push 100+ pitches without worry. If he had approached 20+ pitches in an inning later in the game, I would share the risk assessment, but not here.

 

It's the same premise as to why guys can throw harder when they're expected to only throw an inning in the bullpen, they won't be exposed (usually) to extended stress on the arm.

 

I agree that 100 should not be a rigid threshold. But I actually disagree about the way you calculate how much stress is on a pitcher per inning. I agree that 20+ pitch innings should be weighted higher. But I also think the number of innings should be factored in. How many warm-up pitches does a guy throw per inning? Now, warm-up pitches are low-stress. They're like the pitches you throw between starts. But guys have rigid pitch limits in bullpens for a reason. Think of weight lifting. The difference between 12 and 20 reps is huge.

 

If he wasn't 1.5 years from surgery and on a hard innings limit for the year, I could see it. But not with Gibson, not to save an extra inning on the collection of AAAA pitchers out there.

[cmathewson]

I'd argue that Andrew Albers (Lefty, 2.75 ERA, 1.250 WHIP, 8.5 K/9, 3.8 K/BB, 22.8 K%) deserves a call up before Gibson (3.92 ERA, 1.260 WHIP, 7.9 K/9, 3.2 K/BB, 21.4 K%) if someone is to get up from Rochester to replace Hernandez. And yes he is not on the 40 man roster, but Wood and Butera are. Move Wood to the 60-day DL and you are set.

 

Re: Fien. He is one of the 3 Twins' pitcher with above league average K% (Perkins and Burton are the other 2) The worst pitcher in the Twins' pen right now is Roenicke (1.322 WHIP ,with about .230 BABIP, 6.9 K/9 and 1.67 K/BB)

 

When will Gibson play for the Twins? Maybe in August if he does not have too many innings and the Twins trade a few starters, otherwise 2014.

 

Why would you do this? Albers has no future with Twins. Gibson is a big part of the future. Let's see that future now, before he runs out of innings. Whatever he does up here will be a learning experience for next year, when he will be in the rotation.

[John Bonnes]

I'd argue that Andrew Albers (Lefty, 2.75 ERA, 1.250 WHIP, 8.5 K/9, 3.8 K/BB, 22.8 K%) deserves a call up before Gibson (3.92 ERA, 1.260 WHIP, 7.9 K/9, 3.2 K/BB, 21.4 K%)

 

Huh. I gotta say, I had overlooked this 27-year-old completely. And I don't mean this year. I mean every year.

 

He's been pretty good for three years now - not the greatest strikeout rate, but he walks nobody and his ERA through 5 years in the minors is 2.56? But I don't know anything about the guy. Who is he?

[Thrylos]

Worley and Pelfrey deserve to be demoted before Hernandez period.

 

Why would that be?

 

Hernandez as a starter: 6.75 ERA, 1.721 WHIP, 5.6 K/9, 1.6 K/BB, 4.5 IP/S, .320 BABIP .958 OOPS

Worley: 7.15 ERA, 1.949 WHIP, 4.8 K/9, 2.1 K/BB, 4.9 IP/S, .405 BABIP .997 OOPS

Pelfrey: 6.57 ERA, 1.774 WHIP, 4.2 K/9, 1.6 K/BB, 4.8 IP/S, .361 BABIP .913 OOPS

 

All 3 are pretty close in misery and Hernandez is the rookie with options

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

Why would you do this? Albers has no future with Twins. Gibson is a big part of the future. Let's see that future now, before he runs out of innings. Whatever he does up here will be a learning experience for next year, when he will be in the rotation.

 

I don't think Albers is anything either, but we all thought the same thing about Cole De Vries last season. They would both be the same age at the time of their callup. Plus, Albers has a fantastic record of success in the minor leagues. Much better than Cole De Vries, in fact.

[Thrylos]

Huh. I gotta say, I had overlooked this 27-year-old completely. And I don't mean this year. I mean every year.

 

He's been pretty good for three years now - not the greatest strikeout rate, but he walks nobody and his ERA through 5 years in the minors is 2.56? But I don't know anything about the guy. Who is he?

 

He is a great story. Drafted by the Padres, injured, out of baseball for 2 years then CanAm independent ball with Quebec for a bit before signed with the Twins

[chuchadoro]

I agree with cmat......it isn't "is he the perfect Kyle Gibson he will eventually be", the question is "is he better than the guys at the MLB leve, and will promoting him hurt his development".

 

I don't see how he is not likely better than 1-3 current starters, one of whom is clearly not a starter but a bullpen guy. We can debate the "hurt his development" stuff, but he's 25, and a top prospect. I'd argue that if he can't handle the stress of MLB pitching by now, we have bigger problems.

 

Other than just saying it like fact, what is the argument that:

 

a: he is not better than what they have

b: his development will be hurt - if this is your argument, what is your argument, other than just stating this?

 

mike wins the internet today.

 

Gibson was almost ready before his TJ surgery. He's 6-8 months further removed from surgery than Pelfrey, a guy who has shown almost nothing in ST and the first 2 months of the season. Hernandez will be lucky to eke out a career as a LOOGY. DeVries is underwhelming to say the least. The entire rotation is a perverse joke. So why does Gibson have to string together a handful of good starts to get promoted? I see a bunch of mediocre/bad pitchers with poor/nonexistent track records in MLB. Time to take off the kid gloves IMO.

[Thrylos]

Why would you do this? Albers has no future with Twins. Gibson is a big part of the future. Let's see that future now, before he runs out of innings. Whatever he does up here will be a learning experience for next year, when he will be in the rotation.

 

Why, again, Albers has "no future with the Twins"? On which wall is that written?

[Thrylos]

However, I'm officially intrigued by making Pedro Hernandez a left-handed reliever. .

 

I think that this might be a long term goal, but I suspect that the Twins will kick the tires onRaphael Perez before this happens, even just to see what they have or use as a trade bait (for a C prospect or something.) He pitched in 4 Rochester games (one inning a piece) and has allowed only 2 hits (one a HR), 3 BBs and 2 K. I think he will be up in a couple weeks, otherwise he might become a free agent.

[John Bonnes]

I'm a little baffled by the vehemence being expressed that Gibson needs to be in the rotation right now. It feels like it has more to do with frustration of Pelfrey, Hernandez, etc than belief in Gibson. I'm trying to come up with a line of reasoning for promoting Gibson that talks about Gibson, rather than trashes the current rotation. The best I can come up with is..

 

1. He was very good two years ago and even pitched a little in AAA.

2. He hasn't been bad this year in AAA.

3. He'll likely be better in the future.

4. I'd like to see him.

 

That's a pretty thin case on which to build much outrage. Am I missing something?

[stringer bell]

The Twins and every other team can say "no scholarships" and still treat different players differently. Drew Butera hit in ST and hit fairly well for the Italian WBC team IIRC. It is known that Butera can not/will not hit his weight and will have little power. It is known that Walters and De Vries have marginal stuff despite (in Walters case) putting up good numbers in AAA. They don't project to do well at the next (major league) level. Gibson has more than enough stuff to be effective for the Twins, that seems to be agreed by all. While the results haven't been spectacular, he continues to get a majority of his outs on ground balls with a decent strikeout percentage. He would benefit a lot from a rangy and surehanded middle infield, which the Red Wings don't have. Coaches and managers of the minor league clubs write reports so that the GM can make a more accurate projection. It is neither an exact science nor based purely on performance. In addition to those considerations, the GM has to deal with 40-man issues and options. Risking players who are out of options, or removing them from the 40-man presents the possibility of losing players for nothing. In a meritocracy 3/5 of the rotation would probably be turned over already. Ryan doesn't want to lose them for nothing or give up on them too soon. It will be interesting to see who is demoted/DFAed and who is first in line for promotion.

[greengoblinrulz]

when he pays 'his dues', he'll be up. Unfortunately for him, he missed a full year of dues paying that he needs to make up

[Mike Sixel]

I'm a little baffled by the vehemence being expressed that Gibson needs to be in the rotation right now. It feels like it has more to do with frustration of Pelfrey, Hernandez, etc than belief in Gibson. I'm trying to come up with a line of reasoning for promoting Gibson that talks about Gibson, rather than trashes the current rotation. The best I can come up with is..

 

1. He was very good two years ago and even pitched a little in AAA.

2. He hasn't been bad this year in AAA.

3. He'll likely be better in the future.

4. I'd like to see him.

 

That's a pretty thin case on which to build much outrage. Am I missing something?

 

I don't get the premise that we can't want him up here because he is likely better than at least 1, and probably three current starters. Can you explain that premise?

 

And I'm not outraged, but maybe others are. I won't speak for them.

[Mike Sixel]

The Twins and every other team can say "no scholarships" and still treat different players differently. Drew Butera hit in ST and hit fairly well for the Italian WBC team IIRC. It is known that Butera can not/will not hit his weight and will have little power. It is known that Walters and De Vries have marginal stuff despite (in Walters case) putting up good numbers in AAA. They don't project to do well at the next (major league) level. Gibson has more than enough stuff to be effective for the Twins, that seems to be agreed by all. While the results haven't been spectacular, he continues to get a majority of his outs on ground balls with a decent strikeout percentage. He would benefit a lot from a rangy and surehanded middle infield, which the Red Wings don't have. Coaches and managers of the minor league clubs write reports so that the GM can make a more accurate projection. It is neither an exact science nor based purely on performance. In addition to those considerations, the GM has to deal with 40-man issues and options. Risking players who are out of options, or removing them from the 40-man presents the possibility of losing players for nothing. In a meritocracy 3/5 of the rotation would probably be turned over already. Ryan doesn't want to lose them for nothing or give up on them too soon. It will be interesting to see who is demoted/DFAed and who is first in line for promotion.

 

Isn't Gibson on the 40 man? And I don't get the (what I consider obsession) concern with fringy replacement level guys at the back end of the 40 man roster this board has. Those guys are replacable, or not that good.

[John Bonnes]

I don't get the premise that we can't want him up here because he is likely better than at least 1, and probably three current starters. Can you explain that premise?

 

And I'm not outraged, but maybe others are. I won't speak for them.

 

I don't have a problem with bringing up Gibson, I'm just neutral on it. Like I said, I'd be perfectly OK with moving Hernandez to the bullpen and I'd have Pelfrey on a very short leash.

 

But I think the true long-term thinking is to promote him when you think he's ready, and that has nothing to do with the guys in front of him. And I don't think he's really shown he's ready. I don't see a point in rushing him just because he has an inning limit. And I don't see a point in rushing him if you aren't sure he's going to be better than what is currently here.

[Thrylos]

It is known that Walters and De Vries have marginal stuff despite (in Walters case) putting up good numbers in AAA. They don't project to do well at the next (major league) level. .

 

Dirty little secret: Take away W-L and ERA and De Vries was the best Twins' pitcher in 2012 not Diamond. He has nothing to prove, other than durability, if one thinks that Diamond is doing "well" at the the major league level. Here, if you don't believe me:

 

Diamond: 3.54 ERA, 1.243 WHIP, 4.7 K/9, 2.9 K/BB, 12.6 K%

DeVries: 4.11 ERA, 1.209 WHIP, 6.0 K/9, 3.2 K/BB, 15.5 K%

[Mike Sixel]

Parmalee and Hendriks showed they were ready last year.....ready isn't just about production, but stuff and approach and other stuff. How is it rushing him to have him pitch here, and not in AAA?

 

Like I asked before, other than just saying it, what evidence does anyone have that "rushing" him would hurt him, or keepig him down would help him?

 

You are pretty much never sure of anything in the future, you can only go by the evidence at hand. Do you believe he'd be worse than Pelfry or Hernandez the rest of the year? Do you think it might help him to be up here, getting used to MLB stadiums and whatnot, so that next year isn't his "he's not experienced" year?

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm a little baffled by the vehemence being expressed that Gibson needs to be in the rotation right now. It feels like it has more to do with frustration of Pelfrey, Hernandez, etc than belief in Gibson. I'm trying to come up with a line of reasoning for promoting Gibson that talks about Gibson, rather than trashes the current rotation. The best I can come up with is..

 

1. He was very good two years ago and even pitched a little in AAA.

2. He hasn't been bad this year in AAA.

3. He'll likely be better in the future.

4. I'd like to see him.

 

That's a pretty thin case on which to build much outrage. Am I missing something?

 

I don't think so. He's hardly earned it. I get that there's starters who haven't either, but like everyone else, they need to work a bit at the ML level to see what they have... and in the case of Pelf and Worley, they have had success at the majors and do deserve a longer shot. Pelf for the simple reason that he's a tradable asset if things start working, and Worley because he's a longer term piece.

 

This is a rebuilding team. Gibson is a big part of that future, but he hasn't exactly kicked the door down either. No reason to waste service time when he can still develop in AAA during a season that is quite frankly lost for him and his team.

[chuchadoro]

I'm a little baffled by the vehemence being expressed that Gibson needs to be in the rotation right now. It feels like it has more to do with frustration of Pelfrey, Hernandez, etc than belief in Gibson. I'm trying to come up with a line of reasoning for promoting Gibson that talks about Gibson, rather than trashes the current rotation. The best I can come up with is..

 

1. He was very good two years ago and even pitched a little in AAA.

2. He hasn't been bad this year in AAA.

3. He'll likely be better in the future.

4. I'd like to see him.

 

That's a pretty thin case on which to build much outrage. Am I missing something?

 

I think your points are valid that it has much more to do with the current rotation than Gibson knocking down the door. However, think those reasons are plenty good enough to call him up. If there are a number of guys who aren't producing, why not give a top prospect a shot?

 

Did Hicks deserve to be given the CF job? Did Liam "Lost Boy" Hendriks give the team any reason to take him north (besides having an arm attached to his body)? Does Pelfrey's mediocre NL track record plus being one year removed from TJ inspire any confidence?

 

Everyone else sucks huge donkey b...isnt very good. Gibson has pitched ok, is 25 years old and should be a fixture in the rotation for the rest of the decade. He may not have success right away but the reasons you pointed out are good enough for me.

[Mike Sixel]

service time for a 25 year old? they have him under control until he's 32, service time is not relevant at all to this discussion.

[Thrylos]

 

 

4. I'd like to see him.

 

 

 

This made me realize that the Red Wings are in my back yard this weekend and he is starting the Sunday game. Just got my ticket next to the visitors' bench and will report promptly what I will see. Pretty excited actually

[cmathewson]

I don't have a problem with bringing up Gibson, I'm just neutral on it. Like I said, I'd be perfectly OK with moving Hernandez to the bullpen and I'd have Pelfrey on a very short leash.

 

But I think the true long-term thinking is to promote him when you think he's ready, and that has nothing to do with the guys in front of him. And I don't think he's really shown he's ready. I don't see a point in rushing him just because he has an inning limit. And I don't see a point in rushing him if you aren't sure he's going to be better than what is currently here.

 

I don't think they'd be rushing him. He's 25. He's paid his dues. Not all decisions are based on minor league numbers. If you think he'll get people out consistently up here, and benefit from major league coaching, bring him up. I happen to think he will. But it doesn't bother me if they waste his innings in AAA this year as long as he's ready next year.

 

I have a different philosophy than most about the minors. I believe guys learn how to play in the majors in the majors. As long as they can hold their own up here, it is usually better for them to be up here than in the minors.

[ericchri]

Our current starters don't generate any excitement to see them pitch. And many of them are bad on top of being boring, at least so far. The only one who honestly gives any hope beforehand of getting a "good pitching performance" is Diamond, and he doesn't have the kind of stuff to make it surprising when he doesn't. I used to expect decent pitching games from Pavano much moreso than these guys, and Pavano was hardly an elite pitcher.

 

Give me something interesting to watch. I know I'd rather watch Gibson pitch than any of the starters we have right now, even if he looked overmatched once he started pitching at this level. I'd rather watch a rookie top prospect get shelled than a 30-year-old journeyman. I'd rather watch Deduno, even as a 30-year-old journeyman, than any of them just for the suspense factor and the chance for brilliance.

 

I's been a month-and-a-half of watching more bad than good starting pitching. Why wouldn't you want to shake that up?