Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins News & Analysis

    Twins Pitching Success is Not Sustainable


    Tom Froemming
    Image courtesy of Jordan Johnson-USA TODAY Sports

    Twins Video

    They say ignorance is bliss, and there’s plenty of validity to that statement. You ever want to enjoy a hot dog again? Don’t look up what’s in them or how they're made. And if you want to believe the Twins will have a good pitching staff, you’ll want to stop reading this article.

    There’s no questioning the performance of the pitching up to this point, the staff has been nothing short of spectacular despite the familiar personnel. Why?

    Jason Castro? He’s certainly been a help. Better defense? There’s no doubt that's improved over last year. But, as much as I hate to say it, it’s possible Twins pitchers have also been lucky.

    Usually I despise bringing the “L” word into conversation about major league baseball. These are the greatest players in the world; it seems borderline offensive to attribute their successes or failures to chance. But … if there was ever a situation in which to apply that term it may be to the 2017 Minnesota Twins’ pitching staff.

    Here are some of the numbers heading into Thursday afternoon’s game:

    Twins Starting Pitchers

    ERA 3.18 2nd in the AL

    FIP 4.20 11th in the AL

    xFIP 4.60 13th in the AL

    Twins Relief Pitchers

    ERA 2.64 4th in the AL

    FIP 3.61 9th in the AL

    xFIP 3.54 5th in the AL

    Overall, the results have been outstanding. The Twins have the best team ERA in the AL at 2.98, which is second-best in all of baseball (Dodgers 2.88). Pretty hard to spin that negative, right? Well, if you take a deeper look into the numbers, as the FIP and xFIP suggest, there are plenty of reasons to believe this has all been a mirage.

    Twins pitchers allowed the worst BABIP in the AL last season, .319. This year, they have the lowest mark in the game by 15 points (.233). Only six teams last year surrendered a BABIP under .290, with the Cubs leading the league with a freakishly-low .255 mark.

    The improved defense has certainly helped Twins pitchers, but is the 86-point improvement sustainable? They’re still coaxing the least amount of soft contact in the AL (16.6 percent), so it’s not like they’ve done any better at pitching to contact.

    The Twins have also managed to leave 79.7 percent of opposing base runners stranded so far. That’s an 11.4 percent increase over 2016. Last season, only five teams had a LOB% above even 75 percent. The 2015 Cardinals eclipsed 79 percent in LOB%, but the last team to accomplish that feat before then was Cleveland in 1968.

    It’s also worth noting that the Twins still have the lowest K/9 (6.75) and fifth-lowest K% (18.6) in baseball. Strikeouts aren’t everything, but it’s really difficult to have a good pitching staff without at least average strikeout rates.

    Over the past five seasons, teams that finished in the bottom five in K% also finished in the bottom five in ERA 60 percent of the time, and the bottom 10 in ERA 84 percent of the time. The only team to finish bottom five in K% and post an above average ERA over that span was the 2016 Brewers, who finished 13th in ERA.

    Again, all those figures are from before the Twins' 6-2 loss to Cleveland this afternoon, in which Ervin Santana had a great start but the bullpen surrendered five runs over three innings.

    Depressed yet? Well then let’s go back to the nice shiny numbers. Sustainable or not, the Twins have been pretty good at preventing runs thus far in 2017. See, willful ignorance can be very pleasant.


    Want to play the role of Twins general manager? Check out our free-to-use "You're The GM" offseason tool and build your own Twins roster!

    Build Your 2027 Roster
    Want more Twins in your Google results? Add us as a preferred source.

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos

    Twins Top Prospects

    Yasser Mercedes

    Cedar Rapids Kernels - A+, OF
    On Thursday in the Fall League, Mercedes went 2-for-4 with his first double and his first homer run of the AFL season.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    Wasn't the conversation Levi referenced about starting pitching?

     

    In any case, not dipping into depth, because then you'll have less depth, seems to me a poor reason not to make a move. In fact, it results in the exact same inaction as having zero depth, so what's the harm in using what you have?

    What depth? Isn't that the concern.

     

    And on the bigger point, is it even clear there is a worthwhile bat to grab right now?

     

    Because there is no reliever depth at the moment. The next pitcher they would go down and get, no matter what role, would be one of those starters listed.

    Again, it may change amd quickly, but not there yet.

     

    I disagree that reliever depth and starter depth are the same or that one will affect the other.

     

    Breslow, so far as I can see, should have no bearing on that.

    This article I just read has another spin on this same subject.  Interesting to see how the same numbers can be spun for positive or negative.

     

    http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/78866/how-did-twins-fix-pitching-without-changing-rotation

     

    What I liked about the linked article is it shows how the new system is working, and I feel it may be possible sustain some success over the long haul.  Do I expect same level as first couple weeks?  No, but I do think they will be much better than last year.  

     

    I am a fan of analytics, but the argument that because the FIP is higher than the ERA means it will come back to earth to me is a flawed argument.  Just as saying a pitcher with a good FIP means he will have a good year.  The FIP is a decent thing to look at pitchers ability to strike out players, keep walks down, and keep ball in the park, but it does not count for the other 8 guys on the field, or even the pitchers ability to field himself. This takes out a huge part of the game.  I do agree a good FIP pitcher should have good numbers, but with the defense we put out last year at times even the best FIP pitchers would give up a ton of runs.  Sano and Grossman at times on the corner spots with Santana in CF no pitcher will do well with that OF.  

     

    I am a fan of analytics, but the argument that because the FIP is higher than the ERA means it will come back to earth to me is a flawed argument.  Just as saying a pitcher with a good FIP means he will have a good year.  The FIP is a decent thing to look at pitchers ability to strike out players, keep walks down, and keep ball in the park, but it does not count for the other 8 guys on the field, or even the pitchers ability to field himself. This takes out a huge part of the game.  I do agree a good FIP pitcher should have good numbers, but with the defense we put out last year at times even the best FIP pitchers would give up a ton of runs.  Sano and Grossman at times on the corner spots with Santana in CF no pitcher will do well with that OF.  

    Well, FIP assumes that all in the park contact is the same. And that works for most pitchers. Generally speaking, over a long enough period of time, there is enough consistency in the talent of MLB pitchers that all in the park contact normalizes somewhat and FIP becomes a reasonably good predictor of future success.

     

    My problem with the usage of FIP is the assumption that it works for all pitchers. It doesn't. Like most predictive stats, there are outliers who routinely under- or over-perform their "talent" (for lack of a better word) and kinda break FIP. I also dislike the use of career FIP once a pitcher logs several seasons of play, especially if said pitcher splits their career between multiple teams and leagues (thereby diminishing the impact of good/bad team defense and park effect). At that point, ERA becomes a more accurate assessment of that pitcher's ability because it (mostly) tracks what actually happened, not what was supposed to happen.

     

    But over- and under-performers of FIP appear to be relatively rare (Santiago and Nolasco are good examples of each), which means FIP is still a pretty useful tool, IMO. But, like most other metrics, it needs to be used correctly and it needs to be acknowledged that the metric doesn't work for every player 100% of the time.




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...