Is Chris Paddack Really Going to Breeze into the Starting Rotation?

[jud6312]

I keep reading comments about depth, depth, depth. If your depth is an oft-injured, statistically ineffective veteran, is it really depth? Paddack-level pitchers are a dime a dozen.

 

The guy is never healthy and ERA+ indicated he's been below league average for the last five seasons. Why does anyone think 2020-2024 were the anomalies, when it's pretty clear that 2019 was?

 

I'd have no issue with him being in the rotation if he earns it, but those last two spots should go to the pitchers that earn it in spring training rather than have it based on how large of a contract they tricked a front office into giving them.

[mickster]

On 3/4/2025 at 6:37 PM, purplesoldier4u said:

Do either, or both, tend to go deep into ballgames with 90+ pitches?

and BAM  Zebby leaves todays game with an injury.   I think we NEED the Sheriff and keep our depth

 

[WSoxTerritoryTwinsFan]

2 hours ago, mickster said:

and BAM  Zebby leaves todays game with an injury.   I think we NEED the Sheriff and keep our depth

 

I disagree. We need A pitcher to fill A spot. Paddock sucks as a starter. It just is what it is. Festa, Mathews, Raya or anyone else not named Dobnak pitching in the minors has more upside and I would argue raw talent. That’s why I suggested keeping him in the pen and use as an emergency starter if we get in a tough spot. He’s just not reliably healthy or good enough to start consistently. So finally, please dear merciful Jesus, please let’s unleash the young guns and see what happens. You know that’s what everyone wants to see. Someone goes down Paddock is still here. Youngster not getting it done Paddocks still here. Need a guy to pitch 2 innings cause we can’t hit again and are getting smoked Paddocks still here. Just don’t want to see him throw the first pitch of ANY game EVER. 

[IndianaTwin]

On 3/5/2025 at 2:10 PM, chpettit19 said:

...Reasonable arguments can be made on Paddack starting the season in the rotation, bullpen, or on another team. I don't think it's as clear cut as others may. I'd put him in the pen as a 2 inning weapon. I think the Twins will need about 8 starters again this year like they have the last 2. I'm good with Ryan, Ober, Lopez, SWR, Festa, and Zebby being the first 6 with a handful of other guys fighting for the 7, 8, 9 spots. I understand that comes with some risk, but I think it's a reasonable risk to take. At some point the pipeline has to flow. I'm at the point where I'm ready to start relying on it. It's been long enough that the FO should have established their minor leagues. Time to sink or swim. But I don't think it's crazy to start Paddack in the rotation. Just not what I'd do with the information I have.

I think we're not that far off from each other, CHP. You're seeing that there's an argument to be made for using him in the rotation, and I see the argument for not doing so. One of the other posters has commented several times on these decisions being more of a dial than a switch, which I think is a helpful comment. In the sentence I bolded, my preference is turn the dial a smidge further and include Paddack among the first seven, letting the others fight for 8, 9 and 10. Let's hope that Matthews' tweak today is minor, but it's an indicator of how quickly that seven can turn to six or six turn to five, etc.

 

This isn't directed at you, but I disagree with the notion that Paddack hasn't seen any success as a starter. Are you familiar with Bill James' "Game Score"? It's a system where a pitcher starts with 50 points and then you add points for things they do well (innings completed, strikeouts, etc.) and subtract points for when they do something bad (hits, runs, walks, etc.).

I don't know that it's been tested in any precise way, but apparently it's seen as valid enough to be put on baseball-reference.com. And there's some face validity in that you look at a game with a high score and it's easy to say, "Yeah, he pitched well" or a game with a low score and say, "Yeah, that stunk." It does measure what it purports to measure. I don't know that it's precise enough to delineate between 71 and 70, but if you look at games that score a 70 and compare them to games that score a 60, you'll almost always choose the game with the 70.

Anyway, if you look at the 4-6 best starts from all the starters, it shows Ober having the best starts (not surprising). It also shows Paddack's best starts being on par with Ryan's and Lopez's and better than SWR's, Festa's and Matthews. If you look at the actual pitching lines on some of Paddack's starts, they really are some of the best starts of the season for the Twins. 

The issue is one of consistency, since he also had some of the poorest of the season. I think it's a worthwhile risk to see if during the second year removed from TJS he can have a higher percentage of good starts.

I say "higher percentage," because I'm under no illusion that he's going to hold up to 32 starts. If he has even the 17 starts he had last year, but 12 or 13 are good compared to last year's eight or so and six or seven are as good as his best four last year, I'd be pleased with that from a guy starting the year as the No. 4 or 5. It seems to me that's the risk the Twins are willing to take as well.