Larry Corrigan Returns to the Twins

[Jack Goin]

I don't think (m)any folks here think they know what stats the front office uses. Simply put, due to past acquisitions and a reluctance to play a more modern version of baseball on the field and off, some of us don't think Terry Ryan puts enough reliance on the many statistics available. At least on the free agent side, some of us would prefer a stronger use of statistics than scouting.

Sometimes analysis prevents you from doing something really stupid. I know some of you are saying, "See. This is proof they aren't doing advanced stats work or they wouldn't make so many stupid decisions." Fact is many of those decisions the fan base will never know about.

[Jack Goin]

Could you elaborate? If you're not using FIP or SIERA or some three true outcome based stat, then what have you found to be better predictors?

You know I can't answer that....

[TheLeviathan]

Sometimes analysis prevents you from doing something really stupid. I know some of you are saying, "See. This is proof they aren't doing advanced stats work or they wouldn't make so many stupid decisions." Fact is many of those decisions the fan base will never know about.

 

I'm unclear what you mean here. I think most of us believe stats analysis can be highly effective as a predictor of success, but also as a viable tool for assessing the prudence of a move. So I think it's quite the opposite - we do hope statistical analysis will lead to smarter decisions and fully recognize that. It's part of why we're concerned.

 

So with that in mind, I'd be curious to hear your response to Psuedo's question a few posts back.

[Jack Goin]

I'm unclear what you mean here. I think most of us believe stats analysis can be highly effective as a predictor of success, but also as a viable tool for assessing the prudence of a move. So I think it's quite the opposite - we do hope statistical analysis will lead to smarter decisions and fully recognize that. It's part of why we're concerned.

 

So with that in mind, I'd be curious to hear your response to Psuedo's question a few posts back.

In many people's minds we did or did not make a move because we they believe we don't participate in any analysis. I'm saying maybe we did not make a move because we did do the research and it the info said don't do it. In the end you as a fan will never know we even considered that move in the first place.

To say we didn't sign a particular pitcher because we don't do any advanced analysis is a little short-sighted. there may be medical reasons. Maybe the makeup information we have on a player isn't good. Another team may have offered more money. He may have family issues and pitching closer to home for the next three or four years will be better for his family. It isn't always about stats or money when it comes to free agency. Ultimately the player decides where they want to play.

[Seth Stohs]

As a fan, we have no idea what moves the Twins (or any team) did not make. All we can do is analyze the moves that were made. We can't cite examples of where Jack's group provides some analysis that kept the Twins from making a trade or signing a free agent. Sometimes the best trades are the ones you don't make! Sometimes the best free agent signings are the ones you don't make. The statistical analysis is vital in those cases too.

 

Along with those other factors that Jack mentions, making deals is not as easy as we want to believe. We have the benefit of saying, "Oh, I thought they should sign player X and player Y and player Z." And if one of them hits and does well, we brag it up. The ones that we missed on, we can conveniently forget.

 

My guess is there are some pretty interesting discussions in the Twins front office regarding all (or at least most) moves. Like any good team, everyone's voice should be heard, then a decision made, and then consensus.

 

Jack, thanks for putting yourself out there a bit with the Twins Daily forums!! It's appreciated!! Things can get tough in here sometimes!! I get beat up all the time!

[Brock Beauchamp]

Along with those other factors that Jack mentions, making deals is not as easy as we want to believe. We have the benefit of saying, "Oh, I thought they should sign player X and player Y and player Z." And if one of them hits and does well, we brag it up. The ones that we missed on, we can conveniently forget.

 

This is probably my biggest pet peeve with forum posters. They play up the times they were right about a player and conveniently brush the mistakes under the rug.

 

Well, the front office of the Twins can't do that. We see their successes and failures on a daily basis.

 

For example, almost everyone here was wrong about Correia, myself included. He was a league average pitcher at something close to a league average price. He was a good value. Most of us despised the move and, well, we were wrong (at least for the first year of the deal).

 

On the other hand, I was cautiously optimistic about Pelfrey. That, uh, didn't turn out so well as a one-year deal.

 

I still have issues with the fact that Kevin Correia and Mike Pelfrey were the only significant MLB pick-ups last offseason but on the other hand, I couldn't have been more wrong about which would succeed and which would fail. It's something I wish more posters would keep in mind before hollering about how "right" they were about a single player... Because most of the time, they're flat-out ignoring the three players they were horribly, completely wrong about.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Oh, and thanks Jack for taking the time to visit our forums! It takes some courage to step into the middle of a bunch of disgruntled fans coming off a third consecutive losing season...

[Thrylos]

For example, almost everyone here was wrong about Correia, myself included. He was a league average pitcher at something close to a league average price. He was a good value. Most of us despised the move and, well, we were wrong (at least for the first year of the deal)

 

 

I suspect that most of us did not like the fact that Correia was the big free agent signing on the way of fixing the Twins' pitching. For the record, I had an open mind about Correia and even thought that he might be successful.

 

Correia is a good number four or five guy in a competing team. If he is your best pitcher, you will not compete. And if you are not going to complete, why bother signing people like Correia? So you can lose 96 instead of 106? This is what most of us disliked.

 

Now if the Twins' Front Office thought that they will be a competitive team with Correia, Diamond and Worley anchoring the rotation, there is a problem.

 

Mistakes happen, learn and move on. I am just not convinced that this team knows how to do this. Ryan is already talking about Deduno being penciled in for a spot in the 2014 rotation. I despise that thought

[Mike Sixel]

Thanks to Jack for coming on here. I know he can't answer specifcs, and don't expect it.

 

Brock, I didn't like the KC signing, but mostly because it was THE signing (and the 2nd year, frankly). And, only 18 qualified pitchers had a worse ERA-....so I'm not sure he was league average. As your 4th or 5th best pitcher, fine. But that's not what he was.

 

Jack, I won't speak for all "stats lovers, Ryan doubters", but here is where I come from, if anyone cares......

 

1. On the field, very little is done that looks modern, or driven by statistical analysis. No shifts, horrible pinch running decisions, lots of things that look like they don't make sense mathematically. Sure, going with your gut matters, but playing the odds is playing the odds for a reason.

 

2. I don't expect you all to tell us your secrets. But, Gardy mocks "cybermetrics" every chance he gets. The appearance Ryan gives is that he trusts scouts more than math and science. I'm not sure how you expect fans to react to that, frankly. Add in how the on field decisions are done....

 

3. The outcomes delivered by your organization have been awful for three years now, and don't look a ton better next year (without spending money, since there are no pitchers that look ready to come up day one, other than maybe Meyer, maybe, and you have no 1B or CF and your LF can't field and your DH situation is terrible). How would you expect fans to react, other than wanting to see evidence that your leadership is changing how they work? Why should anyone believe any outcome is going to change, if on the surface it appears the processes are not changing? Why should we pay money for baseball tickets, given what appears to be the near future, and given that it appears this leadership is more interested in cutting payroll than adding legit MLB talent? There are plenty of resources to use, choosing not to use them might be a good decision, but it says to us that you have decided to save money, instead of rolling the dice on being good. In other words, you could be making good decisions not to sign a pitcher, but not signing riskier players or more expensive players just about guarantees you get mediocrity in return. And that tells the fans, imo, that it is about money, not about winning (even if the odds are long).

 

4. I love that you came here. I love that Ryan is granting TD an interview. It shows how hard you are all trying to relate to the fans and involve them in the Twins. thanks.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I suspect that most of us did not like the fact that Correia was the big free agent signing on the way of fixing the Twins' pitching. For the record, I had an open mind about Correia and even thought that he might be successful.

 

Correia is a good number four or five guy in a competing team. If he is your best pitcher, you will not compete. And if you are not going to complete, why bother signing people like Correia? So you can lose 96 instead of 106? This is what most of us disliked.

 

Now if the Twins' Front Office thought that they will be a competitive team with Correia, Diamond and Worley anchoring the rotation, there is a problem.

 

Mistakes happen, learn and move on. I am just not convinced that this team knows how to do this. Ryan is already talking about Deduno being penciled in for a spot in the 2014 rotation. I despise that thought

 

I mentioned that I didn't (and don't) like that Correia was "the big pick-up" last offseason. I'm not absolving the front office of not making another move, just pointing out that particular move was a pretty good one given price vs. performance.

 

I go back and forth on Deduno. If Ryan is planning to pencil him in at #5, Correia at #3, and Gibson at #4 with the intent of picking up two more (good) pitchers, I'm pretty okay with it.

 

But, like you said, I'm not so okay with counting on Worley, Diamond, and Deduno to field a competent rotation out of Spring Training.

[gunnarthor]

Jack -

 

Would it be possible, without giving anything away, to explain how you yourself may or may not be involved in certain parts of baseball operations? For example, last year we saw several good prospects jump levels - Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Stewart to name a few - do the stat guys get involved in suggesting someone be promoted or stay?

 

Secondly, on the FA signings, when you were talking about mistakes, are you suggesting that you may say something like "signing player A for 5 years is a mistake b/c (according to our stat model), he's probably going to break down well before those 5 years are up"?

[TheLeviathan]

In many people's minds we did or did not make a move because we they believe we don't participate in any analysis.

 

I appreciate the response, I only highlighted this part because I think it warrants an explanation. (At least from my perspective) I think some of the skepticism you cite is because we've yet to see a different approach to adding free agents than what we've seen in the past. I sincerely hope the organization is using new avenues of assessing potential moves, it just becomes difficult to completely accept until we see changes in the organization's approach. It's like changing the names of ingredients in a recipe for soup - it doesn't much matter if the soup still tastes the same. And from the outside of the preparation you start to doubt anything was really changed at all.

 

Is there anything you can point to that has happened since you or your department has taken on a more prominent role that might elucidate how the organization is changing things? It doesn't have to be certain stats you used or even player names, but something that might provide insight for how you/your department are making an impact that is different than, say, 10 years ago? (I feel safe saying what you do didn't exist then, but feel free to correct me)

[Mike Sixel]

Pretty much what TheLeviathan says.....from where fans sit, it looks like the same outcomes / decisions and same processes.

[drivlikejehu]

I don't agree that anti-Correia posters were wrong. He was better than expected but still mediocre, and the team lost 96 games.

 

The discontent with Twins' management isn't about one move or even a group of moves/non-moves. Most commentors recognize the information assymetry that exists and are more interested in the 'type' of moves and how they fit with where the organization is situated.

 

Why would a rebuilding team hold onto Willingham when his value was peaking? Why sign back-of-rotation starters? And if Ryan didn't want a full rebuild, why come in under budget? It's the lack of clear direction that even fans can fully discern from the information we have, and it's a problem that justifies concern.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't agree that anti-Correia posters were wrong. He was better than expected but still mediocre, and the team lost 96 games.

 

The discontent with Twins' management isn't about one move or even a group of moves/non-moves. Most commentors recognize the information assymetry that exists and are more interested in the 'type' of moves and how they fit with where the organization is situated.

 

Why would a rebuilding team hold onto Willingham when his value was peaking? Why sign back-of-rotation starters? And if Ryan didn't want a full rebuild, why come in under budget? It's the lack of clear direction that even fans can fully discern from the information we have, and it's a problem that justifies concern.

 

I don't disagree with much of this post. Again, I'm not agreeing with the decision for Correia to be the "big FA move last season". I hated it then and hate it today. But the Correia signing itself was a pretty good move, one that paid off in relation to most other FA pitchers available last offseason, particularly once you factor in price.

 

As for the Willingham comment, this is the easiest rebuttal that so many fans seem to ignore:

 

Why would a contending team trade significant prospects for Willingham when his value was peaking?

 

It's a two-way street. If you can recognize that a 34 year old OF is having a career year, a guy that was available to every team for $21m just five months earlier, a guy that has 2 1/2 years left on his contract, why would you give up significant value to acquire him?

 

Ryan rolled the dice in hopes that Willingham would cement himself as a plus-bat in 2013, at which point general managers would be more willing to trade for him. He'd have a longer track record, less time remaining on his contract, and might actually return a player that would rate somewhere (anywhere) in the top 15 Twins prospects.

 

I know that if I was a GM in 2012, there's no way I'd give up value for Willingham at the deadline. Why do fans assume they're so much smarter than general managers, guys who actually do this for a living? If you won't give up value for a guy because you think he's smoke and mirrors, it's more than a little presumptuous to expect a professional to do the same.

[drivlikejehu]

Willingham is an aging veteran - 2013 wasn't going to "cement" him as anything better than he was in 2012, in fact, the exact opposite was true. And many Twins fans stated as much at the time, so there is no hindsight bias in effect here.

 

There is no reason to think your speculation about other GMs has any credibility whatsoever. The contract was reasonable, the player was doing well, and various clubs could have used a right-handed corner OF bat. Rumors certainly abounded that the interest was real. No one expected top talent in return.

 

But it goes to the same issue as Correia - what good do those guys do a terrible team? Going from 100 losses to 96? Once a team is that bad it doesn't really matter. Spend the money on something that actually might pay dividends in the future.

[Willihammer]

This is probably my biggest pet peeve with forum posters. They play up the times they were right about a player and conveniently brush the mistakes under the rug.

 

Well, the front office of the Twins can't do that. We see their successes and failures on a daily basis.

 

For example, almost everyone here was wrong about Correia, myself included. He was a league average pitcher at something close to a league average price. He was a good value. Most of us despised the move and, well, we were wrong (at least for the first year of the deal).

 

I for one am not ready to crown the Correia signing better than the Anibal, Jackson, Lohse, Dempster, or even McCarthy signings quite yet. More importantly, most of the guys who "busted" still would have been better than what we trotted out there last year, eg. Diamond, whom plane jane public domain stats like xFIP pegged for regression.

 

Also let's not forget the Revere trade. Still too early to call that either way, but if there's any meaning to the fact that Vance Worley was given the first start of the year, they may have been wrong about a player or two also.

[Thrylos]

Also let's not forget the Revere trade. Still too early to call that either way, but if there's any meaning to the fact that Vance Worley was given the first start of the year, they may have been wrong about a player or two also.

 

I actually like Worley. I've seen him play quite a bit with the Phillies and their AAA and AA team and last season he was not himself. He was hurt and so out of shape that it screwed up his mechanics. Add a .401 BABIP and a 15.5 HR/FB and...

 

Next season will be his age 26 season so is about to enter his prime. Some food for thought: He is the same age as Kyle Gibson. Gibson's MLB 2013 was very similar to Worley's 2013 (actually Gibson's xFIP and SIERA were higher). If one is not willing to give up on Gibson based on that, he/she should not give up on Worley.

 

He has to work his rear end out during the off-season though.

[Willihammer]

In many people's minds we did or did not make a move because we they believe we don't participate in any analysis. I'm saying maybe we did not make a move because we did do the research and it the info said don't do it.

 

Were the Twins in on Chone Figgins?

 

I think this is the crux of the frustration for a lot of fans.

edit: at least as far as Free Agency goes.

[Mike Sixel]

thrylos raises a good point, and my fear is that Ryan agrees. Deduno, Worley, Gibson, KC....leaving room for 1 new guy. Does anyone think changing one piece of the worst starting staff in baseball is a good idea? Do "we" really think they'll just improve on their own that much?

[gunnarthor]

Willingham is an aging veteran - 2013 wasn't going to "cement" him as anything better than he was in 2012, in fact, the exact opposite was true. And many Twins fans stated as much at the time, so there is no hindsight bias in effect here.

 

There is no reason to think your speculation about other GMs has any credibility whatsoever. The contract was reasonable, the player was doing well, and various clubs could have used a right-handed corner OF bat. Rumors certainly abounded that the interest was real. No one expected top talent in return.

 

But it goes to the same issue as Correia - what good do those guys do a terrible team? Going from 100 losses to 96? Once a team is that bad it doesn't really matter. Spend the money on something that actually might pay dividends in the future.

 

The rumors at the time was that Willingham might get back a back end prospect type - Sean Gilmartin of Atlanta was mentioned. While Willingham was having a nice season, he still had 2 years on his contract, which, in his case, was a negative. If he's having a healthy year this year, he should still be able to net something similar.

 

To the second point, there wasn't a lot to pay dividends in the future. Pelfrey and Correia were brought in to eat innings and make starts. The future of the rotation isn't on them. The Twins just needed some arms to get through the year.

[nicksaviking]

Sometimes analysis prevents you from doing something really stupid. I know some of you are saying, "See. This is proof they aren't doing advanced stats work or they wouldn't make so many stupid decisions." Fact is many of those decisions the fan base will never know about.

 

I tend to stay away from claiming facts and proof. I guess in the conversation we had regarding statistics and Kevin Correia, I wanted to simply point out that in an interview after the signing, Terry Ryan said he signed Correia because the scouts told him he was better than his numbers. That seemed like reasonable evidence that Ryan made the Correia decision based more on his scouts as opposed to his data team.

[Mike Sixel]

The rumors at the time was that Willingham might get back a back end prospect type - Sean Gilmartin of Atlanta was mentioned. While Willingham was having a nice season, he still had 2 years on his contract, which, in his case, was a negative. If he's having a healthy year this year, he should still be able to net something similar.

 

To the second point, there wasn't a lot to pay dividends in the future. Pelfrey and Correia were brought in to eat innings and make starts. The future of the rotation isn't on them. The Twins just needed some arms to get through the year.

 

 

I guess I'd ask, why was that their target? Getting through the year?

[nicksaviking]

As for the Willingham comment, this is the easiest rebuttal that so many fans seem to ignore:

 

Why would a contending team trade significant prospects for Willingham when his value was peaking?

 

It's a two-way street. If you can recognize that a 34 year old OF is having a career year, a guy that was available to every team for $21m just five months earlier, a guy that has 2 1/2 years left on his contract, why would you give up significant value to acquire him?

 

I think Willingham probably had some decent value last off season. Certainly a other less competitve teams like the Twins wouldn't value him as highly, but a playoff team needing a right handed power bat likely would have been quite interested.

 

I think our expectations last year were too high though. Simply because of his age and the fact that he was a corner OF, not a CF, almost surely meant his value couldn't touch Revere/Span. However those two both fetched top five organizational prospects. I'll bet Willingham could have gotten a MLB ready back of the rotation guy similar in stature to Worley and an orgainzational prospect in the 5-10 range. If that would have happened, many of us would have been pretty disappointed in the return at the time however.

 

I think the real reason Willingham wasn't dealt had to do with what Ryan stated more than once last off-season; they didn't view themselves as rebuilding and they figured they needed Willingham's bat to compete.

[Thrylos]

To the second point, there wasn't a lot to pay dividends in the future. Pelfrey and Correia were brought in to eat innings and make starts. The future of the rotation isn't on them. The Twins just needed some arms to get through the year.

 

I guess I'd ask, why was that their target? Getting through the year?

 

And even if they just wanted to "get through the year", BJ Hermsen, Liam Hendriks, PJ Walters, Samuel Deduno, Sairon Martis, Vance Worley, Andrew Albers, Scott Diamond, Pedro Hernandez, Kyle Gibson, Cole DeVries et al. are plenty enough to "get through the year" with pretty much the same results, without having to have a fifth starter in a good team (Correia) as your first or second starter in 2014 as well...

[glunn]

Thanks glunn. Not really sure what, if any, insights I can provide. I was reading the comments for some reason and felt the need to say something. I know I'm probably walking into a hornets nest by getting on here but oh well. Maybe this can turn into something fun.

 

You are a celebrity to many of us, and anything that you care to contribute will be greatly appreciated. Also, if any of the hornets try to sting you, we will ban them.

[Jack Goin]

I suspect that most of us did not like the fact that Correia was the big free agent signing on the way of fixing the Twins' pitching.

I'm not sure anyone was claiming he was the big free agent signing to fix the rotation. He was a guy to pitch innings which he did better than expected this year.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think it's funny people know what stats we use or that we don't have any predictive stats when we don't talk about it. How do you know?

 

OK, got to admit I didn't see this coming. Welcome to the site.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm not sure anyone was claiming he was the big free agent signing to fix the rotation. He was a guy to pitch innings which he did better than expected this year.

 

To me the move strikes more as a rebuilding move, and while I didn't like it, I'm personally well beyond that at this point.

 

Speaking of rebuilding, I'd be curious what you can and cannot say about that, but from my perspective it looks like the next wave of prospects is (at least for the 2015/16 timeframe) going to be woefully short on impact pitching. From the fan's perspective, it doesn't appear that there's much interest in going after that type of pitching on the market. Are the fans wrong here? If so, would it be possible to elaborate on some failed attempts to acquire pitching from say last offseason, or is that too much to ask?

 

Thanks.

[Thrylos]

I'm not sure anyone was claiming he was the big free agent signing to fix the rotation. He was a guy to pitch innings which he did better than expected this year.

 

Jack, thanks.

 

Nobody claimed it with words, but if you have a rotation like the 2012 Twins' rotation which a. was bad and b. lost its best piece to a trade, and its second best to free agency/retirement, one would assume that it was a part of the team that need fixing for the Twins to compete in 2013. And from the 2 MLB FAs signed, Correia was the one who was given the biggest contract, thus the "big FA signing".

 

Unless, the intention was not for the Twins to compete in 2013, in which case there are a lot of AAAA guys in the system who would pitch innings with the same overall result for the team.

 

The Twins had 2 clear choices after 2011 and 2012:

 

a. doing everything to put a competitive (*) team out there in 2013 and beyond

b. do a real rebuild looking forward to 2015-16 and not sing mediocre 30+ year olds who will not be on their primes in that future

 

But instead they made moves that looks like they were made for the sake of just making moves and resulted to nothing better.

 

This is where the issue is with most of the fans who are having issues with the front office moves last off-season. I just hope that something was learned there and this off-season is better.

 

 

(*) where competitive = world series contender.