Article: Minnesota Twins Agree To Deal With Ricky Nolasco

[Oxtung]

How do Tanaka, Garza, Santana, and Jimenez compare, just to put things in perspective? You realize most look at scouting, make-up, and stats before assigning a number? As I have previously posted, he's a solid #3. I'm sure you know there are roughly 40 1's and 2's combined in all of baseball.

 

It would be great if you would post the Twins' Scouting and Character reports. Then we could all have a clearer picture. Since I don't have those I use the information at hand. That information says that Nolasco is a #3 starter on non-playoff teams and a #4 starter on those heading to the post season.

 

Since Tanaka has no MLB statistics I don't know how he compares. Here is a case where his scouting report is pretty much all that matters. As for Nolasco, Garza, Jimenez and Santana here you go:

 

Where do these pitchers fit into a playoff rotation?

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

Name

#3

#4

BP¹

Ricky Nolasco

1

8

2

Matt Garza

1

7

3

Ubaldo Jimenez

4

9

1

Ervin Santana

4/5²

9

1

[/TABLE]

¹Does not make rotation. Pitches from bullpen.

²Santana and Cingrani tied. Cingrani had better SIERA and ERA- while Santana was better by both WARs. They tied for xFIP- at 93.

 

Jimenez and Santana would be #3 starters in about half of the rotations since there are 10 teams that make the playoffs. Garza and Nolasco are both #4 starters. Nobody makes the Tigers' rotation. Each of these pitchers would be #3 starters, at least, on non-playoff teams.

[jorgenswest]

It would be great if you would post the Twins' Scouting and Character reports. Then we could all have a clearer picture. Since I don't have those I use the information at hand. That information says that Nolasco is a #3 starter on non-playoff teams and a #4 starter on those heading to the post season.

 

Since Tanaka has no MLB statistics I don't know how he compares. Here is a case where his scouting report is pretty much all that matters. As for Nolasco, Garza, Jimenez and Santana here you go:

 

Where do these pitchers fit into a playoff rotation?

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

Name

#3

#4

BP¹

Ricky Nolasco

1

8

2

Matt Garza

1

7

3

Ubaldo Jimenez

4

9

1

Ervin Santana

4/5²

9

1

[/TABLE]

¹Does not make rotation. Pitches from bullpen.

²Santana and Cingrani tied. Cingrani had better SIERA and ERA- while Santana was better by both WARs. They tied for xFIP- at 93.

 

Jimenez and Santana would be #3 starters in about half of the rotations since there are 10 teams that make the playoffs. Garza and Nolasco are both #4 starters. Nobody makes the Tigers' rotation. Each of these pitchers would be #3 starters, at least, on non-playoff teams.

 

Is this just using 2013 data?

 

Shouldn't the Twins care more about projecting 2014?

 

I would guess any projection method would use the last three years while factoring in age.

 

If the analysis was projection based, would the conclusion be the same?

 

The only projections I have seen are from steamer. Nolasco is projected for 2.6, Garza 2.3, Jimenez 2.1 and Santana 1.8 WAR.

[Shane Wahl]

Thanks, Oxtung.

[PseudoSABR]

TLDR: Nolasco is a #3 starter on 1 playoff team, a #4 on 7 teams and doesn't start for 2. To me that's all that matters, how does he compare to teams going to the playoffs.

I think this kind of slotting and comparison is foolhardy--you're getting ahead of yourself if you're thinking about playoff matchups. Our rotation should be a lot different by the time the team's young talent emerges, as will other team's rotations.

[Oxtung]

Is this just using 2013 data?

 

Shouldn't the Twins care more about projecting 2014?

 

I would guess any projection method would use the last three years while factoring in age.

 

If the analysis was projection based, would the conclusion be the same?

 

The only projections I have seen are from steamer. Nolasco is projected for 2.6, Garza 2.3, Jimenez 2.1 and Santana 1.8 WAR.

 

Yes that is just 2013 data. There isn't a good way that I know of to aggregate multiple years of data into xFIP, FIP and SIERA.

 

For my purposes I don't think projections would be applicable. We don't know which teams are going to make the playoffs in 2014. Many teams rotations are not filled out at this point and, perhaps most importantly, projections (I'm guessing here) don't handle mid-season callups particularly well and yet we're seeing that they have significant impacts on rotations during the playoffs. Would STEAMER have predicted that Michael Wacha would be the Cardinals #3 starter in the playoffs?

[Oxtung]

I think this kind of slotting and comparison is foolhardy--you're getting ahead of yourself if you're thinking about playoff matchups. Our rotation should be a lot different by the time the team's young talent emerges, as will other team's rotations.

 

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not talking about how the Twins will matchup in some hypothetical series. I'm showing that to even make the playoffs the Twins need three pitchers that are better than Ricky Nolasco. I'm trying to get people to understand that while he is a solid pitcher and has a spot on a playoff rotation, he isn't the front of the rotation help the Twins need.

 

The Twins need 3 pitchers that are better than Nolasco and hoping that all three of Gibson, Meyer and May turn into front of the rotation starters is foolhardy. There has to be another acquisition of some variety (or two). If there isn't then the Twins are just biding time until Stewart, Berrios, Eades, Jorge, Thorpe and Gonsalves arrive in 2016+ and then more time while they get acclimated to MLB. I'm not in favor of waiting until 2017 to make a run at a championship. Are you?

[jorgenswest]

It doesn't matter what these pitchers did last year. It matters what they can be reasonably expected to do next year.

 

Is is it reasonable to project a Nolasco as a number three starter on a playoff team? Maybe not. I am not sure that the other pitchers listed above would project better.

 

It really even takes more than an averaged projection. A guy like Jimenez might have a 40% chance of being very good and a 60% chance of being awful. His steamer projection may blend that somewhere in the middle. Any team considering signing him would be irresponsible to project based on 2013 only as they assess how he might fit in a playoff rotation.

[Oxtung]

It doesn't matter what these pitchers did last year. It matters what they can be reasonably expected to do next year.

 

Is is it reasonable to project a Nolasco as a number three starter on a playoff team? Maybe not. I am not sure that the other pitchers listed above would project better.

 

It really even takes more than an averaged projection. A guy like Jimenez might have a 40% chance of being very good and a 60% chance of being awful. His steamer projection may blend that somewhere in the middle. Any team considering signing him would be irresponsible to project based on 2013 only as they assess how he might fit in a playoff rotation.

 

Look we're veering way off topic here so I'm only going to say that projections are based off of past data. There is nothing more critical to a projection than the previous seasons statistics.

[lee_the_twins_fan]

It would be great if you would post the Twins' Scouting and Character reports. Then we could all have a clearer picture. Since I don't have those I use the information at hand. That information says that Nolasco is a #3 starter on non-playoff teams and a #4 starter on those heading to the post season.

 

Since Tanaka has no MLB statistics I don't know how he compares. Here is a case where his scouting report is pretty much all that matters. As for Nolasco, Garza, Jimenez and Santana here you go:

 

Where do these pitchers fit into a playoff rotation?

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

Name

#3

#4

BP¹

Ricky Nolasco

1

8

2

Matt Garza

1

7

3

Ubaldo Jimenez

4

9

1

Ervin Santana

4/5²

9

1

[/TABLE]

¹Does not make rotation. Pitches from bullpen.

²Santana and Cingrani tied. Cingrani had better SIERA and ERA- while Santana was better by both WARs. They tied for xFIP- at 93.

 

Jimenez and Santana would be #3 starters in about half of the rotations since there are 10 teams that make the playoffs. Garza and Nolasco are both #4 starters. Nobody makes the Tigers' rotation. Each of these pitchers would be #3 starters, at least, on non-playoff teams.

 

Good compilations, but I have a question: How come the total number of teams listed for Nolasco and Garza listed is 11, but there are 14 (or 15) teams totaled for Jimenez and Santana. Why?

 

Would ANYONE on the list be a number two starter on any playoff team?

 

On another topic, the Twins rotation – and lineup – would need to not only overtake Kansas City to make the playoffs, but Cleveland and/or Detroit as well. That's a tall order for 2014.

[Kwak]

The twins won't make the playoffs next year, so get the knot out of your shorts. This is a process, "and there are no shortcuts...".

[Oxtung]

Good compilations, but I have a question: How come the total number of teams listed for Nolasco and Garza listed is 11, but there are 14 (or 15) teams totaled for Jimenez and Santana. Why?

 

Would ANYONE on the list be a number two starter on any playoff team?

 

On another topic, the Twins rotation – and lineup – would need to not only overtake Kansas City to make the playoffs, but Cleveland and/or Detroit as well. That's a tall order for 2014.

 

I can see your confusion. I should probably have made that chart clearer. If the pitcher was good enough to be a #3 starter on a team then he is also good enough to be a #4 starter and got credit as such. So Jimenez was good enough to be a #3 starter on 4 teams. He was also good enough to be a #4 starter on 9 teams, the 4 teams previously mentioned + 5 new teams. There was only 1 team, the Tigers, that he wouldn't crack. It just looks like Jimenez got credit for 14 teams because some teams got counted twice. I only looked at the 10 playoff teams though.

 

I would guess, and it's just a guess, that neither Jimenez or Santana would crack #2 starter status on more than 1 team. It took quite a bit of time to pull all the data together and I don't have enough now to look at #2 starters. Maybe I'll come back to it later if people want to see it.

 

As for competing in 2014 that is unlikely, though I think the best product should be put on the field within reason. 2014 is really about setting the Twins up for potentially making a run in 2015 and definitely being ready in 2016.

[PseudoSABR]

I'm showing that to even make the playoffs the Twins need three pitchers that are better than Ricky Nolasco.

That's only true this past season. I'm not sure that your slotting analysis bears out over history, nor does it necessarily serve as leading prognosticator. That the playoff teams are so pitching rich may not be the norm in the near future with new TV revenue and the many markets with which teams can accrue talent. Where Nolasco slots hardly matters when compared with the material worth he gives the Twins over the length of his contract.

 

If you're suggesting, that the Twins need a lot of things to break right in order to regain competitiveness, I can hardly argue. But the Twins need to start some where. Having 180 above average innings from any starter is real boon to our current situation. That kind of benefit cost what Nolasco costs. These are the kind of steps that need to be taken if the Twins hope to sniff at the playoffs.

 

There is no guaranteed formula to make a championship run before 2017, beyond signing the best of every free agent class until then, which is just silly. Should the Twins have spent their 75 million on Tanaka or Garza and rolled the dice with the rest or the rotation? Should they have gone Yankees and signed both? Again, I don't see a viable alternative recipe on how the Twins regain that playoff form.

 

As an exercise where would Nolasco rank on the former Twin playoff teams? I imagine he'd be right behind Santana and Radke as the most reliable pitchers the Twins offered in a playoff series, unless you're discluding health.

[Oxtung]

That's only true this past season. I'm not sure that your slotting analysis bears out over history, nor does it necessarily serve as leading prognosticator. That the playoff teams are so pitching rich may not be the norm in the near future with new TV revenue and the many markets with which teams can accrue talent. Where Nolasco slots hardly matters when compared with the material worth he gives the Twins over the length of his contract.

 

If you're suggesting, that the Twins need a lot of things to break right in order to regain competitiveness, I can hardly argue. But the Twins need to start some where. Having 180 above average innings from any starter is real boon to our current situation. That kind of benefit cost what Nolasco costs. These are the kind of steps that need to be taken if the Twins hope to sniff at the playoffs.

 

There is no guaranteed formula to make a championship run before 2017, beyond signing the best of every free agent class until then, which is just silly. Should the Twins have spent their 75 million on Tanaka or Garza and rolled the dice with the rest or the rotation? Should they have gone Yankees and signed both? Again, I don't see a viable alternative recipe on how the Twins regain that playoff form.

 

As an exercise where would Nolasco rank on the former Twin playoff teams? I imagine he'd be right behind Santana and Radke as the most reliable pitchers the Twins offered in a playoff series, unless you're discluding health.

 

Even if you make the assumption that Nolasco is a #3 starter on a good team (which the only evidence provided so far does not bear out) the Twins will still need to find 2 front of the rotation pitchers. Meyer and Gibson have potential but to count on them both seems foolhardy.

 

There is no good way to statistically compare Nolasco to former Twins playoff teams because the pitching environment has changed drastically. The best that could be done is to compare ERA- or xFIP-. It would not be a direct comparison but rather a look at how each pitcher ranked in relation to the other pitchers in their league and season. As an aside, reliable isn't synonymous with good. Just because a pitcher can throw 200 innings doesn't mean he's a great pitcher. There are many pitchers that don't throw 200 innings and yet are more valuable than Nolasco.

[Oxtung]

That's only true this past season. I'm not sure that your slotting analysis bears out over history, nor does it necessarily serve as leading prognosticator. That the playoff teams are so pitching rich may not be the norm in the near future with new TV revenue and the many markets with which teams can accrue talent

 

Since I had already done some previous research into this I'll post what I've found. Looking strictly at ERA- (which adjusts ERA for league and ballpark and then compares to major league average) this is how many players were below average pitchers and pitched (or would have pitched if their team hadn't flopped) in the playoffs.

Below Average Pitchers

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[/TD]

[TD]'03

'04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

Made ALDS

3

7

3

3

4

3

2

4

4

1^*

Made ALCS

1

3

0

1

2

1

1

1

3

1

[/TABLE]

^*2 more made the one game playoff and would have pitched had the Rangers advanced.

 

So 34 below average pitchers have started games in the last decade. That is 21%. That number drops to 14 and 18% in the ALCS.

 

Ricky Nolasco and Phil Hughes are both below average for their career and over the last 3+ years. Using Nolasco's 2013 and Hughes 2012 ERA-(which, at 101, were their best seasons recently) they would have been a #3 starter in three games or 8% of the time. They would have been a number 4 starter on twelve occasions or 30% of the time. They wouldn't have pitched 63% of the time.

 

This is just one statistic but combined with my previous research it doesn't paint Nolasco and Hughes in a favorable light. It does however highlight the need for the Twins to obtain a pitcher with front of the rotation stuff.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I can't like this enough. Nolasco and Hughes are both guys that have not pitched as well as their peripherals have indicated, and while I tend to think this might be where advanced stats break down, history indicates that these types of guys are the ones that can suddenly put it together. I don't expect either to be the typical definition of an ace, but both could turn into a guy who exceeds the value of his contract by a decent margin. I'd have preferred Tanaka, but they went out and spent money on REAL upgrades to supplement the next wave when they arrive. I think these signings are going to make 2014/15 in particular much much much more exciting.

[Shane Wahl]

This is a good, brief analysis:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/12/breaking-down-the-twins-ricky-nolasco-signing.html

"The important questions for the Twins are why Nolasco's ERA has been consistently higher than his strikeout, walk, and home run rates suggest, and if that will remain the case over most of the next four years. From 2009-13, the typical NL starter has stranded around 72% of his baserunners. Nolasco's strand rate in that time is a bit shy of 68%, worst in MLB among those with at least 700 innings. Perhaps that's unfair, as it's roping in some really low strand rates from 2009 and '11. If we look at just 2012-13, Nolasco is at 70.1%, 16th worst in MLB among those with 300 innings. Nolasco has a 4.08 ERA in that time, versus a 3.60 FIP. A metric that treats Nolasco as a 3.60 ERA pitcher is overstating his value.

Nolasco's strand rate problems stem from his performance with men on base. His strikeout rate falls below six per nine innings and his walks jump up to around three, even in his successful 2013 campaign. If the Twins don't find a way to address this, they might have a 4.50 ERA pitcher on their hands from the start. FanGraphs has another version of WAR called RA9-WAR, which essentially uses a pitcher's actual runs allowed instead of his FIP. That metric suggests Nolasco was a two-win pitcher in 2013, his best season in years. If Nolasco begins at two wins, this contract is not good value even if a win on the 2013-14 free agent market costs $6.2MM. I'm not comfortable valuing a pitcher based on ERA or FIP, however. The valuation changes drastically if we split the difference and project Nolasco as a 2.5 win pitcher in 2014. In that case, I think this can be an even money deal, though I don't have a lot of confidence in predicting the annual inflation of the free agent market."