On Rushing Pitchers And Taking Lumps

There's a little bit different context with the current team.  If the Twins are indeed going to shoot for a deeper post-season run, they can ill-afford to allow too many players (and especially starting pitchers) to just "take their lumps" for any extended amount of time.

Romero, for one, is likely on an innings limit.  I just don't see the wisdom of putting a player in his "coming back" situation into the high leverage situation of a hopeful playoff team rotation.

Frank Viola sucked his first season up. Every time something would go wrong, he'd blow his top, get mad, then lose command. 

Fortunately, he got better after that.

I'm all for bringing up the kids and letting them take their lumps. Personally, I'd bring up the top five pitching prospects right away. Gonsalves, Romero, Jorge, Jay, and Stewart. Bring 'em all up, see how they do. Let the veterans advise them how to prepare. Let them know that initial failure is the most probable outcome, and that getting sent down to AAA is not punishment, it is regrouping and learning. 

If I'm not mistaken, this is how the Rays do it.

Will you feel differently if we get deep into the summer and the Twins are angling for a postseason spot with a shaky 5th starter while Romero torches Triple-A?

I'd hope for a deadline deal to fix the shaky fifth starter in that situation this year.

I definitely wouldn't want to see the Twins in a situation where they scrap a development plan or load progression plan that mortgages the long term health of the player and his ability to make the team competitive over a longer term in favor of going with the hot hand -- elbow or shoulder be damned.

Now, if the Twins decided to call up Romero and have him take his lumps in a low-leverage long relief roll that also allows for more load management, I could see that working.  He might still have some gas at the end of the season when it counted and be a Kenta Maeda-type weapon in the playoffs.

What if the young stud minor league starters began their major league careers as low leverage relievers? What difference do you think that additional variable might make, if any?

Basically, that's Johan Santana.  Granted, the Twins had to have him on the 25-man.

If Gibson/Mejia/Hughes/Sanchez or whoever is struggling I personally wouldn't have a problem going with Slegers or Gonsalves as soon as mid to late May.

If Gibson/Mejia/Hughes/Sanchez or whoever is struggling I personally wouldn't have a problem going with Slegers or Gonsalves as soon as mid to late May.

That would be fine. Just don't give them the rope of 14 starts with an 8/6 ERA/FIP.

Edit: No starters should be given the 8/6 rope, IMO.

Maybe this is beside the point, but Buxton was absolutely rushed in 2015. He came up with 60 AA games under his belt. If he didn't have a good head, it would have ruined him.

I don't agree with dismissing the idea of rushing prospects as a convenient narrative. Front offices should evaluate players on a case by case basis. If a guy isn't ready, no one benefits from hastily promoting him. That's putting the player in a position to fail.

I think your whole premise is flawed from the get go.

Right now I'm in a mid-life career change going from education to engineering. I am consistently one of the top students in my classes. What other students find challenging isn't always for me so I look for other ways to bench mark my performance. Did I finish that assignment as efficiently as I could have? Is there another way I could have solved the problem? What if I tweak the problem slightly, what would I do differently? Is there any deeper meaning I can glean from this problem?

You are essentially asserting that players can't learn anything if they are dominating at a given level which is just false. Berrios knows whether he hit that glove or not. Buxton knew how many breaking balls he was chasing outside the zone.

I think if a player is dominating AAA at a young age it is absolutely OK to give them a taste of MLB but if they start to struggle immensely, a la Buxton or Berrios, it is also OK to send them back to AAA where they can work on specific things. Given todays video and statcast tools there are other ways to evaluate players rather than just ERA/OPS/etc...

Nice post. A lot of this will change as this new line of GM's assert themselves. But MLB and its wealthy owners won't give up the control and cheap labor in MiLB without a fight. Always follow the money. There's a reason the system in use is in place. And it's certainly not for the players or the fans benefit.

The problem of rushing players is that you start the service clock ticking. Teams like the Twins can't afford to waste 2-3 of the cost controlled years of the player "learning the ropes" at the MLB level.

If the Twins are in contention, and IF their starting five is doing good to ok, then there is no need to rush any of these guys.  

Let them pitch out their season in AAA.  Then add them in September when they can get some innings along with their first feel of the big leagues...all during a pennant chase.

Hopefully, we won't need them any sooner.

No Twins starter should be over 25 years old if they go on a 30-130 "death march".

There are risks in bringing a player up too soon, but there are at least as many if they wait too long.  There's no way to know who can mentally handle MLB and who can't.  I think longer time in MiLB actually adds pressure more often than not.  It also seems that if a team isn't comfortable bringing up a youngster there's more of a tendency to bring someone up just because they've put their time in.  

But Ox, you are not 22 years old. Your point isn’t lost on me, but your experience is what gives you the opportunity to put things into their proper perspective.

Sure, that is true that I probably push myself harder than most others in my classes, but I also don't have an employer expecting to make millions of dollars off me providing huge amounts of resources to help me figure things out. I don't have a pitching coach that is looking over my shoulder explaining every minute detail, every step of the way, every day.

Not saying that's true in all cases by any means. And I do think a guy can keep improving at Triple-A especially in a case like Berrios or Buxton where they were able to get exposure against MLB hitters to have those weaknesses crystallized before going back to work on them. 

Your original post doesn't read that way but sounds like we're on similar thought lines then. I think whether a player stays in MLB or returns to the minors depends on how much they're struggling but also on where they are at mentally. It is entirely a case by case basis and with many of the decision making factors we don't have access too as fans.

I'd make a clearer distinction between a new guy who's inconsistent but showing glimpses of the future and a guy who just flounders. Mejia versus Cole DeVries.

If I'm a GM trying to create my ideal formula, I will always, and I mean always, have a rookie 5th starter. Ideally, he is brought up as an injury replacement. I expect this rookie will be a mid or front end starter by the following season and who I think will take his lumps but get better as the season progresses. I want to have at least two more just as ready in AAA, again guys who I expect will eventually become at least mid rotation stalwarts. To make this work, my first two starters have to be giving me #1-2 performance and my next two guys must be legit #3's. Then, I'm always looking for a trade, at the deadline or off season, from surplus starters. It's the most sought-after asset in the game and probably the best way to extract an overpay in a trade. Not that the example is immediately comparable, but it makes the point about building assets as the recipe for competitive success: CWS trades Sales, after enjoying much of his prime at a very reasonable cost, for the very best prospect in baseball, Moncada, a future #1-2 in Kopech, a guy who might be THEIR version of the rookie #5 taking his lumps in 2018, and Basabe, who will have a good career most likely.

The Twins would foil my designs today. They don't have two front end starters, and maybe not even one, we don't know yet. Everyone vying to be a #3 might end up being a #4 or worse. And their rookie candidates, Sleger and Gonsalves, lack front end ceilings, and maybe even lack #3 ceilings. Romero is another year away, and we'll have to wait and see who emerges as as a potential mid or front line prospect besides Romero, who, like every pitching prospect, remains a question mark in his own right.

I'm convinced that the most critical component of sustained success is to build a pitching pipeline through the draft, IFA, and trades, and to systematically and consistently introduce young talent into the rotation.

If Gibson/Mejia/Hughes/Sanchez or whoever is struggling I personally wouldn't have a problem going with Slegers or Gonsalves as soon as mid to late May.

If Gibson, Mejia, and Hughes are all performing like #3's, Berrios and Santana are giving you front line performance, and May looks sharp in rehab? I'm looking to see if anyone wants to overpay for either Hughes, Santana, or Gibson at the deadline. Especially if Gonsalves, Sleger, or anyone else at AAA is lights out.

This ain't happening.

In an ideal situation a developing player should be competing at a level slightly higher than where he has already succeeded. And I think that's fairly easy to do in the minor league system that's in place today. However, the jump from AAA to MLB is a bigger jump than moving up one class in the minors. For example, not many AAA batters can do much to a straight 95 fastball, but in MLB there are lots of players who turn those into 400-foot dingers.