Finding The Rotation's Upside

IndianaTwin · February 2, 2020

I buy that there's a dropoff in a pitcher's third time through the order, but there's also a factor that I don't think is controlled for in these stats.

By definition, if he is pulled sometime during the third time through the order, he's had more at bats against the top of order. Put another way, the only way he faces the Nos. 8 and 9 hitter three times, where he ought to pad his stats, is if was pitching well enough to get through 27 hitters. For example, 7 innings with six base runners (and no double plays) would get him to 27 batters. If he had a cruddy night and got pulled after giving up 9 baserunners over 5 innings, he faced the top six guys in the order three times and and the bottom three only twice.

Homerhankie · February 2, 2020

I am confused here. First the author states, its unrealistic for Rocco to aggressively limit Bailey and and Pineda pitching threw the lineup a third time. Then the following paragraph he states we are lucky to be able to aggressively limit those two pitchers pitching to the lineup a third time threw. Completely contradictory statements.

Richie the Rally Goat · February 2, 2020

I buy that there's a dropoff in a pitcher's third time through the order, but there's also a factor that I don't think is controlled for in these stats.

By definition, if he is pulled sometime during the third time through the order, he's had more at bats against the top of order. Put another way, the only way he faces the Nos. 8 and 9 hitter three times, where he ought to pad his stats, is if was pitching well enough to get through 27 hitters. For example, 7 innings with six base runners (and no double plays) would get him to 27 batters. If he had a cruddy night and got pulled after giving up 9 baserunners over 5 innings, he faced the top six guys in the order three times and and the bottom three only twice.

or use an opener

Cody Pirkl · February 2, 2020

I am confused here. First the author states, its unrealistic for Rocco to aggressively limit Bailey and and Pineda pitching threw the lineup a third time. Then the following paragraph he states we are lucky to be able to aggressively limit those two pitchers pitching to the lineup a third time threw. Completely contradictory statements.

The point I was trying to make was that they can't afford to limit guys as aggressively as they did with Odorizzi, who's trips through the order they limited almost every outing. That being said, they can still be more aggressive than they could afford to be in the past.

DocBauer · February 2, 2020

The thing I really like about Odorizzi is how well he uses the high strike to befuddle batters. And while I really like him, what he lacks is any sort of "whipeout" pitch to limit pitches thrown. Which is why he is a 5-6 IP vs a 6-7 IP.

Let's face it. The game has changed. There are just so few guys out there who can be a 7 IP arm. Aggressiveness and launch angles as opposed to contact and opposite field hitting have changed the game. If Oddo had that ONE pitch he could really count on, his living high in the zone could make him a $25M guy instead of just really good.

Not sure about "upside" as the OP teases. To me, depth and potential should have been a better topic.

IndianaTwin · February 2, 2020

or use an opener

Exactly -- I get that what I was describing is the argument for openers.

I think the opener is great in concept, but I haven't seen enough of it in practice to have a good feel for it. If the opener goes 1-2-3 and is pulled, the primary still has to deal with 4-5-6 when he starts his third time through the lineup -- better, but still not easy. If the opener goes two innings and gives up two baserunners, still a pretty good outing, the primary starts with No. 9 instead of No. 1, which isn't much difference.

In some sense, the ideal is for the opener to strand two runners so the primary can start at a point like No. 6 or something in the second inning. But even then, facing the whole lineup twice, plus the bottom of the order is only 22 batters. Five innings with six baserunners is a pretty good 1.2 WHIP, but that means the primary gets 9-1-2 in the sixth, when they are tiring, followed by 3-4-5 if anyone gets on base. In the traditional approach, the same stats mean you get to 4-5-6 when tiring in the sixth, but at least it's 7-8-9 if someone gets on board.

It also seems that using a more "traditional" lineup is the best defense against a closer. A lot of teams have moved toward having their best hitter (the tradtional No. 3) in the No. 2 spot, with the traditional cleanup hitter at No. 3. With that approach, an opener is guaranteed to get past those two guys, even if he goes 1-2-3. By contrast, the "traditional" lineup against a closer means the primary has to start with the cleanup guy if the opener goes 1-2-3.

Particularly with the 26-man roster creating a 13-man bench, I can see managers like Rocco being even even more likely to give guys a day off. If you're on the road and facing an opener, it would be interesting to take a guy who's getting his scheduled day off and lead him off, sliding everyone down a slot. If he gets on, you pinch-run with the guy you planned to bat ninth. You use a body, but you lessen the advantage of the primary, since he has to start with No. 3 if you go 1-2-3 in the first.

Like I said, I like the opener in concept, but I still need to see more of it in practice before I'm convinced.

I've started to be convinced that a better approach than an opener is to have a more defined long relief guy. Not a mop-up guy, but a guy who regularly pitches two or even three innings in meaningful situations. Between those relievers who could be defined as even moderately effective over an extended period of time -- Rogers, May, Duffey, Harper, Littell, Magill, Stashak, Romo, Morin -- there were only 46 outings that were a full two innings and not even a handful of those started the third. The one exception was Smeltzer, who went 3+ in four of his five starts.

Given that a guy like Smeltzer was a starter most of the year and guys like May, Duffey, or Littell were recently starters, it seems like there is a place for somebody who is able to get 100 innings in meaningful relief, spread over only about 40 games. With that many games, you're talking about roughly one game out of every four, but regularly getting 2-3 innings per outing. In most cases, he will still only face each batter once. In some cases, he might face a couple guys a second time, though that would typically be in games where he's been effective enough to get to a third inning and even so, you're now late enough in the game to pull him if he starts getting hit or loses control.

What would that look like? Well...

When the starter struggles to get through five, this is the guy to pitch the 6th and 7th so that you still through seven on two pitchers.
If he's on and rested, give him the eighth as well.
Similarly, if the starter only gets through four, but you're still in the game because of the Bomba Squad, plan to throw him three innings and again get through seven on two guys.
Even if he just goes two in that situation, at least you've gotten through six on guys and only need to get three more innings.
If the starter pitches well and goes six, let him go two and be the bridge to the closer.
Or if he's rolling, let him get the three-inning save and give the rest of the bullpen the day off.

And it seems manageable. Last year, the Twins got 892.2 innings in 162 starts and 570.2 from relievers. With a 13-man staff and five starters and the long guy combine for 992.2 innings, you only need 470.2 from the other seven, an average of 67.1 per bullpen spot.

Note that I am not assuming that the same five guys get all the starts. Rather, I'm just meaning that at any given time you have five guys in starter roles, and those guys get the 992.2 innings. Similarly, I don't mean that you need seven guys that each go 67.1 innings in relief, but rather that each relief spot gets 67 innings. Particularly with the Rochester Shuttle in place, the guys in the No. 13 pitcher spot could easily get more than 67 innings, particularly given that they will get blown out of a few games, but also get a lot of blowouts with this lineup. That means the average for the remaining spots goes down.

Wow that's a long response to a four-word post!

Linus · February 2, 2020

The biggest X factor is health. The Twins rotation was amazing healthy last season so their depth wasn’t tested. Sling together a few injuries this year and it could be ugly

Richard Swerdlick · February 2, 2020

It would be interesting to see some stats regarding pitchers 3rd time through the order from people like Sandy Koufax, Jim Kaat, Roger Clemens, etc.

Doctor Gast · February 2, 2020

Exactly -- I get that what I was describing is the argument for openers.

I think the opener is great in concept, but I haven't seen enough of it in practice to have a good feel for it. If the opener goes 1-2-3 and is pulled, the primary still has to deal with 4-5-6 when he starts his third time through the lineup -- better, but still not easy. If the opener goes two innings and gives up two baserunners, still a pretty good outing, the primary starts with No. 9 instead of No. 1, which isn't much difference.

In some sense, the ideal is for the opener to strand two runners so the primary can start at a point like No. 6 or something in the second inning. But even then, facing the whole lineup twice, plus the bottom of the order is only 22 batters. Five innings with six baserunners is a pretty good 1.2 WHIP, but that means the primary gets 9-1-2 in the sixth, when they are tiring, followed by 3-4-5 if anyone gets on base. In the traditional approach, the same stats mean you get to 4-5-6 when tiring in the sixth, but at least it's 7-8-9 if someone gets on board.

It also seems that using a more "traditional" lineup is the best defense against a closer. A lot of teams have moved toward having their best hitter (the tradtional No. 3) in the No. 2 spot, with the traditional cleanup hitter at No. 3. With that approach, an opener is guaranteed to get past those two guys, even if he goes 1-2-3. By contrast, the "traditional" lineup against a closer means the primary has to start with the cleanup guy if the opener goes 1-2-3.

Particularly with the 26-man roster creating a 13-man bench, I can see managers like Rocco being even even more likely to give guys a day off. If you're on the road and facing an opener, it would be interesting to take a guy who's getting his scheduled day off and lead him off, sliding everyone down a slot. If he gets on, you pinch-run with the guy you planned to bat ninth. You use a body, but you lessen the advantage of the primary, since he has to start with No. 3 if you go 1-2-3 in the first.

Like I said, I like the opener in concept, but I still need to see more of it in practice before I'm convinced.

I've started to be convinced that a better approach than an opener is to have a more defined long relief guy. Not a mop-up guy, but a guy who regularly pitches two or even three innings in meaningful situations. Between those relievers who could be defined as even moderately effective over an extended period of time -- Rogers, May, Duffey, Harper, Littell, Magill, Stashak, Romo, Morin -- there were only 46 outings that were a full two innings and not even a handful of those started the third. The one exception was Smeltzer, who went 3+ in four of his five starts.

Given that a guy like Smeltzer was a starter most of the year and guys like May, Duffey, or Littell were recently starters, it seems like there is a place for somebody who is able to get 100 innings in meaningful relief, spread over only about 40 games. With that many games, you're talking about roughly one game out of every four, but regularly getting 2-3 innings per outing. In most cases, he will still only face each batter once. In some cases, he might face a couple guys a second time, though that would typically be in games where he's been effective enough to get to a third inning and even so, you're now late enough in the game to pull him if he starts getting hit or loses control.

What would that look like? Well...
When the starter struggles to get through five, this is the guy to pitch the 6th and 7th so that you still through seven on two pitchers.
If he's on and rested, give him the eighth as well.
Similarly, if the starter only gets through four, but you're still in the game because of the Bomba Squad, plan to throw him three innings and again get through seven on two guys.
Even if he just goes two in that situation, at least you've gotten through six on guys and only need to get three more innings.
If the starter pitches well and goes six, let him go two and be the bridge to the closer.
Or if he's rolling, let him get the three-inning save and give the rest of the bullpen the day off.
And it seems manageable. Last year, the Twins got 892.2 innings in 162 starts and 570.2 from relievers. With a 13-man staff and five starters and the long guy combine for 992.2 innings, you only need 470.2 from the other seven, an average of 67.1 per bullpen spot.

Note that I am not assuming that the same five guys get all the starts. Rather, I'm just meaning that at any given time you have five guys in starter roles, and those guys get the 992.2 innings. Similarly, I don't mean that you need seven guys that each go 67.1 innings in relief, but rather that each relief spot gets 67 innings. Particularly with the Rochester Shuttle in place, the guys in the No. 13 pitcher spot could easily get more than 67 innings, particularly given that they will get blown out of a few games, but also get a lot of blowouts with this lineup. That means the average for the remaining spots goes down.

Wow that's a long response to a four-word post!

Starting pitching is like a marathon, you need to pace yourselves in order to finish the race. If you send a relay team against a marathoner the relay team should win the race every time.In SP you have to mix it up a little to throw off the batters therefore not constantly throwing your best stuff.

Berrios & Odorizzi probably better not using an opener but at the same time need to see what their max. pitch count should be & keep them rested. But the rest of the rotation I believe is better off using an opener.

Darius · February 2, 2020

The rotation certainly isn’t a disaster. But, there’s just nobody that I trust in the playoffs. Berrios and Odorizzi are OK, not great. I don’t feel overly confident about either of the two. The rest have absolutely no business pitching a playoff game. The sad truth is that no team employing Homer Bailey or Michael Pineda as mid-rotation fixtures is going to last very long in the playoffs.

If they don’t trade for front-line starter (which they won’t), the team’s only hope is that Berrios somehow takes another step (I don’t think it’s going to happen, its possible), Odorizzi sustains last year’s success (entirely possible) and Rich Hill gets healthy, stays healthy, and deals (nearly impossible).

It’ll be a fun season. They’ll score a ton of runs. Unfortunately, I’m already looking forward to next year’s free agent SP crop (Kluber, Bauer, Ray, Tanaka, Paxton) to see if we can serious about a World Series title in 2021.

Richie the Rally Goat · February 2, 2020

Exactly -- I get that what I was describing is the argument for openers.

I think the opener is great in concept, but I haven't seen enough of it in practice to have a good feel for it. If the opener goes 1-2-3 and is pulled, the primary still has to deal with 4-5-6 when he starts his third time through the lineup -- better, but still not easy. If the opener goes two innings and gives up two baserunners, still a pretty good outing, the primary starts with No. 9 instead of No. 1, which isn't much difference.

In some sense, the ideal is for the opener to strand two runners so the primary can start at a point like No. 6 or something in the second inning. But even then, facing the whole lineup twice, plus the bottom of the order is only 22 batters. Five innings with six baserunners is a pretty good 1.2 WHIP, but that means the primary gets 9-1-2 in the sixth, when they are tiring, followed by 3-4-5 if anyone gets on base. In the traditional approach, the same stats mean you get to 4-5-6 when tiring in the sixth, but at least it's 7-8-9 if someone gets on board.

It also seems that using a more "traditional" lineup is the best defense against a closer. A lot of teams have moved toward having their best hitter (the tradtional No. 3) in the No. 2 spot, with the traditional cleanup hitter at No. 3. With that approach, an opener is guaranteed to get past those two guys, even if he goes 1-2-3. By contrast, the "traditional" lineup against a closer means the primary has to start with the cleanup guy if the opener goes 1-2-3.

Particularly with the 26-man roster creating a 13-man bench, I can see managers like Rocco being even even more likely to give guys a day off. If you're on the road and facing an opener, it would be interesting to take a guy who's getting his scheduled day off and lead him off, sliding everyone down a slot. If he gets on, you pinch-run with the guy you planned to bat ninth. You use a body, but you lessen the advantage of the primary, since he has to start with No. 3 if you go 1-2-3 in the first.

Like I said, I like the opener in concept, but I still need to see more of it in practice before I'm convinced.

I've started to be convinced that a better approach than an opener is to have a more defined long relief guy. Not a mop-up guy, but a guy who regularly pitches two or even three innings in meaningful situations. Between those relievers who could be defined as even moderately effective over an extended period of time -- Rogers, May, Duffey, Harper, Littell, Magill, Stashak, Romo, Morin -- there were only 46 outings that were a full two innings and not even a handful of those started the third. The one exception was Smeltzer, who went 3+ in four of his five starts.

Given that a guy like Smeltzer was a starter most of the year and guys like May, Duffey, or Littell were recently starters, it seems like there is a place for somebody who is able to get 100 innings in meaningful relief, spread over only about 40 games. With that many games, you're talking about roughly one game out of every four, but regularly getting 2-3 innings per outing. In most cases, he will still only face each batter once. In some cases, he might face a couple guys a second time, though that would typically be in games where he's been effective enough to get to a third inning and even so, you're now late enough in the game to pull him if he starts getting hit or loses control.

What would that look like? Well...
When the starter struggles to get through five, this is the guy to pitch the 6th and 7th so that you still through seven on two pitchers.
If he's on and rested, give him the eighth as well.
Similarly, if the starter only gets through four, but you're still in the game because of the Bomba Squad, plan to throw him three innings and again get through seven on two guys.
Even if he just goes two in that situation, at least you've gotten through six on guys and only need to get three more innings.
If the starter pitches well and goes six, let him go two and be the bridge to the closer.
Or if he's rolling, let him get the three-inning save and give the rest of the bullpen the day off.
And it seems manageable. Last year, the Twins got 892.2 innings in 162 starts and 570.2 from relievers. With a 13-man staff and five starters and the long guy combine for 992.2 innings, you only need 470.2 from the other seven, an average of 67.1 per bullpen spot.

Note that I am not assuming that the same five guys get all the starts. Rather, I'm just meaning that at any given time you have five guys in starter roles, and those guys get the 992.2 innings. Similarly, I don't mean that you need seven guys that each go 67.1 innings in relief, but rather that each relief spot gets 67 innings. Particularly with the Rochester Shuttle in place, the guys in the No. 13 pitcher spot could easily get more than 67 innings, particularly given that they will get blown out of a few games, but also get a lot of blowouts with this lineup. That means the average for the remaining spots goes down.

Wow that's a long response to a four-word post!

TLDNR

Jk I skimmed a bit though.... is the three batter or complete the half inning minimum an impact to your very thoughtful post?

From what I’ve heard, the 4th rotation spot is Thorpe’s for the taking. This would color Chacin as Homer Bailey insurance.

To simplify things a bit and even out the workload, 13 pitchers and a 3 batter rule would lend itself well to a 4 out opener for the 5th rotation spot (and the 3rd until Pineda returns). That would give you a long man, 5 setup men, a closer and an opener.

mikelink45 · February 2, 2020

I am so opposed to an opener. The starting pitcher (I know the name is changed now) comes in as a reliever and has a possible 2 run deficit. They are not geared to this. A SP should want to control the game from the very beginning and not watch another arm of lesser quality go out ahead of them.

IndianaTwin · February 2, 2020

TLDNR

Jk I skimmed a bit though.... is the three batter or complete the half inning minimum an impact to your very thoughtful post?

From what I’ve heard, the 4th rotation spot is Thorpe’s for the taking. This would color Chacin as Homer Bailey insurance.

To simplify things a bit and even out the workload, 13 pitchers and a 3 batter rule would lend itself well to a 4 out opener for the 5th rotation spot (and the 3rd until Pineda returns). That would give you a long man, 5 setup men, a closer and an opener.

Not sure, but I don't think so.

I've also wondered about four-out openers, though. Depends on who you're playing, of course, but with how much teams tend to tail off at the bottom of the order, it seems like the primary beginning at about No. 5 (for weaker lineups) or 6 (for stronger) makes the most sense if you're thinking the primary will go about 22-23 batters on average. (For context, I know folks gripe about Odo not going deep enough, but take out two games when he got shelled and he averaged 22.6 batters.)

The issue with a four-out opener is that starters rarely come in in the middle of an inning, so it seems like they'be thrown off stride. Again, not having seen an opener in practice very much, do you know if teams have routinely brought in their primary mid-inning? My hunch is not, but I've not dug into that.

IndianaTwin · February 2, 2020

I am so opposed to an opener. The starting pitcher (I know the name is changed now) comes in as a reliever and has a possible 2 run deficit. They are not geared to this. A SP should want to control the game from the very beginning and not watch another arm of lesser quality go out ahead of them.

That's a good dynamic that I haven't seen mentioned very much.

You're right, pitchers do seem to be creatures of habit, and I can imagine that the notion of a clean slate could be significant to them. And the notion of walking out to start the game with your team having had a clean inning under its belt probably is less beneficial to their psyche than the negative effect of being in a hole and feeling like you have to clean up somebody else's mess.

Doctor Gast · February 3, 2020

Starting pitching is like a marathon, you need to pace yourselves in order to finish the race. If you send a relay team against a marathoner the relay team should win the race every time.In SP you have to mix it up a little to throw off the batters therefore not constantly throwing your best stuff.
Berrios & Odorizzi probably better not using an opener but at the same time need to see what their max. pitch count should be & keep them rested. But the rest of the rotation I believe is better off using an opener.

Although I`m sure I`m not the 1st to suggest using openers extensively w/ our rotation. Still I have for a long time. Last year Rocco started using our AAAA pitchers which I thought was great as openers, long relievers & starters. W/ the condition of our BP & later our starting rotation, we needed to use them more. Perez who isn`t a strong pitcher pitched 2nd most innings, Gibson who had a bout w/ e coli & colitis pitched a close 3rd most & the results showed their drastic drop off. If they could have been given less innings by the increase use of our AAAA pitchers the results would have been sharply better. Even Berrios & Odorizzi could have benefited from a little more relieve.

Now this year especially in the beginning the season our rotation is drastically inferior than anterior. We need to max our pitching cap (thanks to our flexible bench we can do this) & using our revolving door of our AAAA pitchers, having a constant schedule of rotating AAAA pitchers from AAA to the bigs (we can also do this w/ our position bench too). This has many benifits#1 everyone is rested & healthier #2 all our AAAA players will have more experience #3 management point of viewAAA players won`t have too many ininnings.

Thank you for this article & bringing up this issue

Twodogs · February 4, 2020

The point I was trying to make was that they can't afford to limit guys as aggressively as they did with Odorizzi, who's trips through the order they limited almost every outing. That being said, they can still be more aggressive than they could afford to be in the past.

I think Odo gets pulled most of the time because he has thrown like a 100 pitches already before he gets out of the 5th inning. I don't think he'd get pulled as my if it took him 7 innings to get to 100 pitches?

Twodogs · February 4, 2020

It would be interesting to see some stats regarding pitchers 3rd time through the order from people like Sandy Koufax, Jim Kaat, Roger Clemens, etc.

I have a theory about some of the old guys and how they pitched. Even remember Brad Radke, remember if a team was going to get to him they'd usually have to do it early in the game because once he settled in he became very tough. My thought process on this is that many of those top pitcher of all time were often tougher late in the game as opposed to early. I think many of them pitched straight forward for the first couple of innings, meaning they wouldn't show all of their stuff. Once they got into the 6 - 7 inning then their nasty off speed and sliders etc... Would show up. So I think many of them would just bring it for the first inning or two and then they would bring on their junk later. Now it seems like these guys are Max effort from the get go and they use all of their pitches so the 2nd time through the hitter have seen everything they have?? JMO

Sign In

Finding The Rotation's Upside

Twins Video

Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

Recent Twins Articles

Recent Twins Videos

Community Blogs

Forum Topics

Twins Top Prospects

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

Featured Comments

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

How many games will the Minnesota Twins win in 2026?