Starting Rotation Remains An Important Bright Spot

Yet...by xFip

2011 4.33

2012 4.46

2013 4.46

2014 4.12

2015 4.24

Never better than 20th (which, granted, is this year.)

Yet...by xFip
2011 4.33
2012 4.46
2013 4.46
2014 4.12
2015 4.24

Never better than 20th (which, granted, is this year.)

Is that for the starting rotation?   Does that mean the fielding has been better than average this year?

I am surprised the Quality Start stat isn't better.   It is better than the last two years but not significantly.    Hurt a bit by Milone with 1 our of 5 and Nolasco who is 1 of 7.   Gibson, Pelfrey, Hughes and May all doing ok so am hoping either Milone gets it together or Santana replaces the Nolasco/Milone spot.

I am just grateful I found what appears to be the only article on the whole internet that is not about Caitlyn Jenner or the Duggars.

Is that for the starting rotation? Does that mean the fielding has been better than average this year?

2011 4.18

2012 4.59

2013 4.56

2014 4.08

2015 4.16

Starters currently sit at 16th in MLB. Seeing they currently are WORSE than last years' by at least that measure.....it belies the eyes for sure. xFip thought they were a full run better than their ERA last year. I don't know if xFip actually had to watch them pitch at any point, but it is what it is. Confirms those '12 and '13 teams were absolutely rotten though, which required no confirmation.

I know everyone gets worried about "logjams" but I really appreciate the depth they have.  We had a suspension and Nolasco's injuries and we still are not trotting out Pedro Hernandez to take starts.

Plus, our eventual bullpen solution might come from this depth when Santana arrives.  How are Milone's splits against lefties?  This team needs a loogy in the worst way.....

Great article. The Twins starters are better this year as a group. Hughes has scuffled a bit but is picking it up. May is learning each time out. Pelfrey and Gibson have been very good.

xFIP is not a good measurement for ground ball pitchers like Gibson and Pelfrey. For example, xFIP believes that Ricky Nolasco and Trevor May are the best Twins starters this year. Debatable.  

Ground balls are associated with a much lower OPS than fly balls and line drives. A higher ground ball percentage should also result in more double plays. Gibson and Pelfrey have induced 27 DP, while the other four starters have 12. Not a coincidence.

Pitching performance is affected by how hard balls are hit and by ground ball percentage. Tony Blengino at Fangraphs has been running a series on "contact quality" this year. He says,

"Contact management is really, really important. To be a truly great starter in the big leagues today, it’s not enough to simply miss a ton of bats and minimize walks. Unless one does both to a prodigious extent, like [David] Price, at least one core contact-management skill is required to propel you to the elite level."

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/contact-quality-just-a-part-of-the-puzzle-2014-al-pitchers/

Re: contact management skills. Great article by Jesse Lund on Pelfrey's improved performance:

http://www.twinkietown.com/2015/6/11/8768669/charting-the-improvements-of-mike-palfrey

Ah, the week the Twins fell back to earth. 

This is not a contending team.  However, they are competitive.  That's a big step above the past 4 years.  Frankly, after the 2nd 90 loss season, I'd have a tough time being excited to show-up for work.   I think Allen is a refreshing change from Anderson and along with the maturing of May and Gibson the starting staff is now MLB competent. 

The bright spot might be the outfield defense.

I agree the starters have been getting by on a bit of luck. Phil Hughes is pitching like Yankees Phil Hughes, and pelf will regress at some point. What is encouraging is Gibson has naturally progressed into a 3-4 starter as has Trevor may. Simply not trotting out 4a players 3 out of 5 games makes a huge difference. That being said let's not kid ourselves. To get to the next level we're going to need at least 2 prospects to turn into top of the rotation arms, from what I see iun the minors that's still a year or 3 away.

a 3-4 starter?  I know he isn't a big strikeout guy but I think he deserves a little more credit than that.  I would say he is a very solid 3 and a borderline #2 starter.  On this team he is definitely a 2.

I agree, but I think what has helped is improved defense. I do not think our defense is elite but it's better than last year. Hunter is better than willing ham defensively. Hicks has played well defensively as has Robinson. We do not have Bartlett or collabello in the outfield. Rosario is an upgrade. Mayer is improved at 1st.

"xFIP is not a good measurement for ground ball pitchers like Gibson and Pelfrey.... ground balls are associated with a much lower OPS than fly balls and line drives."

I think it's fair to say that xFIP is a better predictor of future success than current ERA. And it's fair to suggest that OPS is a better measure than how the Twins are pitching than their ERA. And neither of those numbers supports the glowing conclusion of this post.

Yes, their ERA has been awesome. But runs are the product of WHEN the other team gets hits, not how many hits they get.  You can get hit a lot without giving up many runs for a while, but eventually the runs will catch up.  And by OPS, the Twins are not that good.  Minnesota is currently 24th in OPS against.

To be fair, though, you were talking about the starters, not the whole team.  They are certainly a hell of a lot better than last year -- and much deeper. I don't mean to sound negative -- just defending the people above who say you can't read too much into a short period of good ERA if FIP and OPS don't support it.

But I really don't think there will be a major collapse like the last few years. There are enough legitimate major league starters around that if one or two falter they won't go off the cliff.  If they can just get a little more offensive production to match, they'll be competitive all year.

Howard Sinker in the strib pointed today to some numbers that are more relevant than the ones I quoted above. I had said the Twins good ERA masks the fact that their OPS against was 24th in the league. But this article was about starting pitching, and that number includes some pretty poor relief work. Here's the relevant numbers for just the starters:

rank in AL of Twins starting pitchers, in ERA:  4th

rank in AL of Twins starting pitchers in OBP, SLG, and OPS against:  12th

that's right -- they were near the bottom of the league even while they were doing well, and even if you take out the relievers.

I'm shocked, frankly. I, too, thought starting pitching was the one legitimate area where the Twins had made genuine progress. I still have a hard time giving up that idea. Guess we'll wait and see. 

If they can't score runs, it might not matter. But I'm still hopeful that if they get some reinforcements in the batting order, and the pitching can sustain itself, they could stay competitive. 

This makes me wonder, however. Where they ever playing well enough to be competitive, even during their record-setting May? Or were hits just grouping in  in a flukey way, on both sides of the ball? The numbers seem to say they were never producing enough to sustain any real success. The doubters seem to have a more solid case than the dreamers. At least in the short term.

This doesn't fill me with despair though -- I didn't have my hopes up that high for this year, I've just been enjoying it -- and this story isn't over, by any means. I'll be watching with genuine fascination. 

Suppose they can hang in there long enough to stay close, and by the end of the year Buxton, Sano, Arcia, Berrios, and Meyer are all making contributions -- hell, might as well throw in Jay in the bullpen if we're fantasizing -- well, you never know. Stranger things have happened.