First quarter over...on pace for 89 losses

[ThePuck]

Oh and the Ben Revere trade is looking really bad right now.

 

Revere isn't exactly tearing it up either...he has an OPS of .600 and an OBP over .300 because of his last game...before that, he was mid .560s in OPS with an OBP under .300. Much better than our CF right now, but that bar is extremely low and not the barometer worth looking at. Let's see how May turns out...

[snepp]

Revere has a .900+ OPS in May, fwiw.

[jokin]

Revere has a .900+ OPS in May, fwiw.

 

Is salt-rubbing always your answer for every self-inflicted wound?

[jokin]

Revere isn't exactly tearing it up either...he has an OPS of .600 and an OBP over .300 because of his last game...before that, he was mid .560s in OPS with an OBP under .300. Much better than our CF right now, but that bar is extremely low and not the barometer worth looking at. Let's see how May turns out...

 

Playing irregularly will do that to your numbers.

[jokin]

Look there was never any reason to believe that the Twins could maintain to hang around the .500 mark. There was never any reason to think of it as anything but a "hot start" for a really bad starting rotation. Getting Deduno, Gibson, and eventually DeVries in the rotation taking the spots of Hernandez, Worley, and eventually Pelfrey will make the team better. How much better? That is the question.

 

Given your proposal that at least two of the guys from last year are "better", to me the question is:

 

What was the point??? (in getting the new guys in the first place).

[ThePuck]

Playing irregularly will do that to your numbers.

 

exactly...he was doing so bad he started losing playing time

[ThePuck]

Revere has a .900+ OPS in May, fwiw.

 

That's awesome! Hope he keeps it up.

[jokin]

exactly...he was doing so bad he started losing playing time

 

Since April 19, his OPS is .742, which is 105 points higher than his career OPS number of .637. Since Mayberry has been given the gig (same time frame), his OPS is .565. A bad first 2 weeks does not a season make, nor does a hot following month, let's see how it plays out.

[ThePuck]

Since April 19, his OPS is .742, which is 105 points higher than his career OPS number of .637. Since Mayberry has been given the gig (same time frame), his OPS is .565. A bad first 2 weeks does not a season make, nor does a hot following month, let's see how it plays out.

 

I agree...and I'm happy for him. See post above. Cartwheels I tell ya, cartwheels.

 

Additionally, the book hasn't even been written on May, nor has Worley seen the end even though most are ready to burn him at the stake already.

[jokin]

I agree...and I'm happy for him. See post above. Cartwheels I tell ya, cartwheels.

 

Additionally, the book hasn't even been written on May, nor has Worley seen the end even though most are ready to burn him at the stake already.

 

Perfect example, which Worley is the real one? Last Friday's good Vanimal? Or today's Bagger Vance? Methinks he too, is still recovering his form from elbow surgery, time in Roc. can serve him well, assuming he works hard to make the necessary adjustments. Still, it's on Ryan for acquiring multiple sore-armed SPs and expect to sell to the public that everything has now become immediate seashells and balloons.

[Mike Sixel]

I hope Revere has a long and prosperus career. I also hope May and Worley do.....but I'm beginning to have doubts. But all of them are too young to give up on.

[snepp]

Is salt-rubbing always your answer for every self-inflicted wound?

 

Masochism is a tough habit to kick.

[Guest USAFChief]

Reread the exchange. Yes, the career WAR value of a given pick has essentially been solved. You won't see more work on it because the study was exhaustive and the confidence interval was high.

 

Also it's not a fangraphs original.

The Baseball Analysts: Draft Picks and Expected Wins Above Replacement

That's one line of thought on why we won't see more "work" on it, I guess.

[launchingthrees]

And the timing for the Twins- who have just moved into a new stadium based on the premise that Target Field will make them immediately a legit and continually competitive club against the big-market teams- in accepting the premise that they voluntarily tank for 4 years, would permanently damage the team's credibility down to Miami Marlins level.

 

Agreed, but the twins are long past caring about their credibility They're spending about 1/3 of their revenue on payroll this year. Expecting ownership to be competitive with other major league teams in spending/revenue is a pipe-dream.

 

"And the teams that repeatedly draft in the top 5 picks are generally the same ones, year after year, only Tampa Bay and Washington have been able to escape from your "optimal strategy", and they still look years away from legitimately being considered World Series contenders"

 

 

It's not easy to be competitive for an extended period of time with a low payroll. That being said, in 3 years the Twins, Astros, and Nationals will be at the top of their divisions due to hoarding elite prospects.

 

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9273233/hoarding-prospects-being-horrible-houston-astros

[Alex]

That's one line of thought on why we won't see more "work" on it, I guess.

 

To add to your point, Tom Tango explains in the comments about why the study isn't really that useful.

 

The notion that "it" has been solved is a bit overblown.

[launchingthrees]

1)Evan Gattis and Dan Uggla would beg to differ (just to take the most recent opponent example).

 

You should work for the twin's front office. Use 2 counter examples to a 2500 player study. Brilliant.

[Guest USAFChief]

 

It's not easy to be competitive for an extended period of time with a low payroll. That being said, in 3 years the Twins, Astros, and Nationals will be at the top of their divisions due to hoarding elite prospects.

 

Hoarding prospects and being horrible with the Houston Astros - Grantland

 

Good to know. Science!

[launchingthrees]

Good to know. Science!

 

You also think

"ERA, won-loss record and even quality starts tell you a lot more than xFIP"

 

So yeah

 

 

[ThePuck]

Good to know. Science!

 

How long have the Pirates and Royals been drafting high and hoarding prospects? :-)

[TheLeviathan]

How long have the Pirates and Royals been drafting high and hoarding prospects? :-)

 

KC is a good lesson for us right now in fact. Don't start counting chickens (even elite ones killing the ball in the minors) until they hatch.

[jokin]

You should work for the twin's front office. Use 2 counter examples to a 2500 player study. Brilliant.

 

I'll counter that by saying that you should work for the IPCC, as the Chief said so well..."SCIENCE!"

[mcrow]

I was figuring if they did well they would win 74 or so but being on pace for only 68 doesn't seem outlandish to me.

[Guest USAFChief]

You also think

"ERA, won-loss record and even quality starts tell you a lot more than xFIP"

 

So yeah

 

 

 

That I think your statements about the mysteries of the MLB draft having been "solved" are just a tad... overblown ...is not quite like any of the things you listed above.

 

 

For the record, regarding your list, if we're looking backward at the end of a season, I'd rather have wins above any other stat for a starting pitcher. We're looking backward, and the object when a team takes the field is to win the game. W/L record for a starter tells you a lot about how he helped accomplish that goal. All that other stuff is useful in telling you HOW he pitched. At the end of the season, I'm primarily interested in results, not what some person's idea of how things should have gone instead of how they did go.

 

Now if we're looking forward, and trying to decide what a given pitcher is likely to accomplish in the future, then yeah, I would want to look at other data.

 

But none of that has much to do with the MLB draft, in which a look backward, at what the average WAR was of a given pick in a given draft, might be interesting but is next to worthless. I might even compare it to using the average W/L record, ERA, or quality starts of a given pick to proclaim with certainty that future picks will accomplish the same thing.

 

So yeah

[Oxtung]

For the record, regarding your list, if we're looking backward at the end of a season, I'd rather have wins above any other stat for a starting pitcher. We're looking backward, and the object when a team takes the field is to win the game. W/L record for a starter tells you a lot about how he helped accomplish that goal. All that other stuff is useful in telling you HOW he pitched.

 

Wins and Losses tell you nothing about how a pitcher pitched. They are a team stat. Just because a pitcher gets a win doesn't mean he pitched well enough to deserve that win. Worley's first win came on a night that he gave up 5ER's over 5 innings with a WHIP above 2. By any measure that is not a good pitching performance and yet he got the win because the Twins bats that night were even better.

 

On the other side of the spectrum Liam Hendricks took a loss after 5 innings where he gave up 4 hits and zero walks with just a solo home run. Great outing and yet he gets saddled with a loss because the bipolar Twins couldn't put the bat on the ball.

 

Run support is very important in determining wins and losses. Pitchers have no control over that.

[Guest USAFChief]

Wins and Losses tell you nothing about how a pitcher pitched. They are a team stat. Just because a pitcher gets a win doesn't mean he pitched well enough to deserve that win. Worley's first win came on a night that he gave up 5ER's over 5 innings with a WHIP above 2. By any measure that is not a good pitching performance and yet he got the win because the Twins bats that night were even better.

 

On the other side of the spectrum Liam Hendricks took a loss after 5 innings where he gave up 4 hits and zero walks with just a solo home run. Great outing and yet he gets saddled with a loss because the bipolar Twins couldn't put the bat on the ball.

 

Run support is very important in determining wins and losses. Pitchers have no control over that.

 

I understand all of that. At the end of the game, would you rather your team won, or played well? At the end of the game, would you rather your pitcher gave up 10 runs and won, or 1 run and lost? I'd rather have Worley give up 5 and win than Hendriks give up 1 and lose. At the end of the season, a pitcher's ERA, FIP, xFIP, SIERRA, quality starts, luck, unluck...none of it matters in accounting for how many wins you ended the season with. All that matters is how many games you won.

 

We're looking backward. At the end of the season, I don't care how you got there. At the end of the season, I care how many games the team won.

[ThePuck]

I understand all of that. At the end of the game, would you rather your team won, or played well? At the end of the game, would you rather your pitcher gave up 10 runs and won, or 1 run and lost? I'd rather have Worley give up 5 and win than Hendriks give up 1 and lose. At the end of the season, a pitcher's ERA, FIP, xFIP, SIERRA, quality starts, luck, unluck...none of it matters in accounting for how many wins you ended the season with. All that matters is how many games you won.

 

We're looking backward. At the end of the season, I don't care how you got there. At the end of the season, I care how many games the team won.

 

yes, how many the TEAM won is the most import...the TEAM, by fielding, hitting and pitching (both starter and the relievers after the starter left). Phil Hughes wasn't better than Felix Hernandez in 2010 because he went 18-8 while Felix went 13-12.

 

Additionally, if you add up all the wins and losses by your starting pitchers you won't come close to accounting for all 162 games, so again, win and loss record by pitchers...meaningless in determining how well the pitcher did.

[Oxtung]

I understand all of that. At the end of the game, would you rather your team won, or played well? At the end of the game, would you rather your pitcher gave up 10 runs and won, or 1 run and lost? I'd rather have Worley give up 5 and win than Hendriks give up 1 and lose. At the end of the season, a pitcher's ERA, FIP, xFIP, SIERRA, quality starts, luck, unluck...none of it matters in accounting for how many wins you ended the season with. All that matters is how many games you won.

 

We're looking backward. At the end of the season, I don't care how you got there. At the end of the season, I care how many games the team won.

 

If wins and losses are determined by a team effort, which I think you're agreeing with, then by definition they require the hitters support right? If they require hitters then how does that tell you about a pitching performance?

 

As Puck pointed out, give me King Felix any day. Over the course of a season he's going to lead to more team wins even if his personal win/loss record isn't as high as other pitchers because Seattle can't hit a whiffle ball.

[greengoblinrulz]

18-28 (.409pct) puts Twins back on track for 96 losses AND this is before they add Walters/Deduno to the fold.

What a summer of debauchery this will be!!!

[Guest USAFChief]

I don't know how many different ways I can say this. I'll give it one last try.

 

At the end of the season, all that matters is results. Results pretty much boil down to wins and losses. If I'm looking back at a season, they didn't put you in the playoffs for IP, for pitching well, for ERA, Sierra, xFIP, or anything like that. They want to know what your record was. If you were lucky all season, it counted. Unlucky? That counted too.

 

For that matter, If you offered me two pitchers for the 2014 season, and one was guaranteed to win 18 games, the other 13, I'd take the 18. You wouldn't?

 

Now, since you can't guarantee results for next season, I'd go with the pitcher who I thought would pitch better, not the pitcher who won more games last year. For that, I'd look at things that would lead me to believe pitcher A will likely be better than pitcher B in the future. Wins wouldn't be part of that evaluation.

 

In the specific case of Hernandez/Hughes, there's something like 70 IP difference between the two in 2010, so the results include more to look at than just wins/losses. I'd probably still take the 18 wins over the 13, it's a close call.

 

If you asked me between the 2010 and 2011 seasons which pitcher I'd rather have going forward, Hughes or Hernandez, then it's an easy call, Hernandez.

 

But don't tell me, in retrospect, Ws were meaningless. It's the object of the game. If my pitcher gets a win, the team gets a win.

[Oxtung]

I don't know how many different ways I can say this. I'll give it one last try.

 

At the end of the season, all that matters is results. Results pretty much boil down to wins and losses. If I'm looking back at a season, they didn't put you in the playoffs for IP, for pitching well, for ERA, Sierra, xFIP, or anything like that. They want to know what your record was. If you were lucky all season, it counted. Unlucky? That counted too.

 

For that matter, If you offered me two pitchers for the 2014 season, and one was guaranteed to win 18 games, the other 13, I'd take the 18. You wouldn't?

 

Now, since you can't guarantee results for next season, I'd go with the pitcher who I thought would pitch better, not the pitcher who won more games last year. For that, I'd look at things that would lead me to believe pitcher A will likely be better than pitcher B in the future. Wins wouldn't be part of that evaluation.

 

In the specific case of Hernandez/Hughes, there's something like 70 IP difference between the two in 2010, so the results include more to look at than just wins/losses. I'd probably still take the 18 wins over the 13, it's a close call.

 

If you asked me between the 2010 and 2011 seasons which pitcher I'd rather have going forward, Hughes or Hernandez, then it's an easy call, Hernandez.

 

But don't tell me, in retrospect, Ws were meaningless. It's the object of the game. If my pitcher gets a win, the team gets a win.

 

Chief the problem with your premise is that W's are a team stat. It's not a pitcher stat. It tells you nothing about how a pitcher actually pitched. Remember you said:

 

W/L record for a starter tells you a lot about how he helped accomplish that goal [wins].

 

Now to a question you pose. Would I take the 18 wins over the 13? No, I'd take the pitcher that pitched better because he more likely lead to more team wins. If pitcher A wins 18 but does so because his team hits like a mother ****** and then in the other 13ish starts he gets crushed and they lose how is that better than a pitcher that only gets 13 wins but keeps the game close allowing his team to win later in the game?

 

This all comes back to the fact that a win is a team statistic. A pitcher only contributes 30% or so of that win. That means 70% came from other players (obviously I made those numbers up but 50% comes from hitters and then a significant portion of a win comes from fielders).

 

You can only judge a pitcher on what he can control.