Twins 2019 Position Analysis: Starting Pitcher

Wes Johnson has his work cut out for him. All he needs do is make this pitching staff throw overwhelming stuff all season without their arms falling off. 

 

Reminds me of that Superman movie where the villain says to his sidekick, "All I asked of you was one thing: Kill Superman."

There has been talk of the Twins talking extension with Gibson. Any one know if those talks are dead or ongoing?

Is there a good chance that Odorizzi starts the year as #5?  P&P just might begin ahead of him based on their springs.  If that happens, this is a very good rotation.  

 

The one risk I see is that Pineda may tire the last month or two since he hasn't pitched much for a couple years.  That's where the cream of the crop at Rochester will help.  And looking at that depth group, plus Thorpe, Rochester should have one heck of a starting 5 or 6.

 

And let's change next year's prospects this week...extend Gibson!

 

 

Maybe it's too counterintuitive, but Target Field seems to be built to reward pitch to contact pitchers who let good defensive outfielders chase down fly balls in the outfield and let good defenders make plays on ground balls in the infield.   Yet in today's strike-out or "launch angle"/home run style of play, that type of thinking must be obsolete.   I must also be a dinosaur when I think "just bunt around the shift" (especially lefties who have the entire left side of the infield open!)   Stupid me.  

"If calamity strikes the Twins rotation, it's a sign the season is probably not headed anywhere meaningful."

 

It's not a sign, it's a reason. If they had signed one good #1/2 starter, it would move everyone down one rung on the ladder and provide important backup in case someone does get injured.

 

   I must also be a dinosaur when I think "just bunt around the shift" (especially lefties who have the entire left side of the infield open!)   Stupid me.  

 

Who would do this on the Twins? Kepler and Rosario? They are also both kinda fast at running...  

 

There has been talk of the Twins talking extension with Gibson. Any one know if those talks are dead or ongoing?

Trade Rumors had this a couple days ago.  Sounds dead.

 

SATURDAY: Extension talks are off for the time being, according to MLB Network’s Jon Heyman, who tweets that the Twins and Gibson didn’t come close to a deal during their discussions.

Nick, how do you define an "ace"? And is it the same definition as a #1?

 

I kinda feel like these are different things, yet they get conflated often, and both have pretty muddled definitions.

 

I don't think it takes much improvement to think of Berrios as an "ace" or be a fit for the #1 slot for a contender. He finished just outside the top 10 last year in pitching bWAR and was at least as good as anyone Oakland ran out there last season and isn't far off of Severino for the Yankees. Berrios improved in a lot of areas last season and it wasn't a fluky year.

 

Are you only an "ace" if you're in the top 5 for Cy Young every year? Is that the same definition for a #1? (I think for the former it's not unreasonable, I think for the latter it means very few teams have a #1 starter and becomes silly).

 

Boston, Houston, and Cleveland have had top-end depth in addition to talent; each had 2+ pitchers in the top 10 for bWAR which makes them so dangerous. It's why if the Twins added pitching in the offseason I wanted someone who was at least as good as, preferably better than Kyle Gibson (who was awfully good last year, despite my constant skepticism that he could sustain it. I was wrong...last year.)

 

Twins would be helped if either Berrios or Gibson to take another small step forward, especially for when they get to the short series end of it, but getting consistent positive performance from slots 3-5 might be even more important. Odorizzi was our 3rd best starter last season and seems to be best suited as a 4-5 guy. We patched together a LOT of starts from guys who weren't ready or able (either from inexperience or injury). 

 

 

Nick, how do you define an "ace"? And is it the same definition as a #1?

 

I kinda feel like these are different things, yet they get conflated often, and both have pretty muddled definitions.

 

I don't think it takes much improvement to think of Berrios as an "ace" or be a fit for the #1 slot for a contender. He finished just outside the top 10 last year in pitching bWAR and was at least as good as anyone Oakland ran out there last season and isn't far off of Severino for the Yankees. Berrios improved in a lot of areas last season and it wasn't a fluky year.

 

Are you only an "ace" if you're in the top 5 for Cy Young every year? Is that the same definition for a #1? (I think for the former it's not unreasonable, I think for the latter it means very few teams have a #1 starter and becomes silly).

 

Boston, Houston, and Cleveland have had top-end depth in addition to talent; each had 2+ pitchers in the top 10 for bWAR which makes them so dangerous. It's why if the Twins added pitching in the offseason I wanted someone who was at least as good as, preferably better than Kyle Gibson (who was awfully good last year, despite my constant skepticism that he could sustain it. I was wrong...last year.)

 

Twins would be helped if either Berrios or Gibson to take another small step forward, especially for when they get to the short series end of it, but getting consistent positive performance from slots 3-5 might be even more important. Odorizzi was our 3rd best starter last season and seems to be best suited as a 4-5 guy. We patched together a LOT of starts from guys who weren't ready or able (either from inexperience or injury).

I think if you have to ask if a guy is an ace, then he's probably not one.

Thank you for the article.  I was going to comment on your line:

 

"I can't remember the Twins ever having this degree of first-level depth."

 

because I think they have little "first-level" talent but a lot of B- talent.

 

And then I read your next paragraph.  And I agree.

 

Statistically speaking, the third best measure of pitching effectiveness is WHIP.  Might the Twins' starters come close to The Indians'? 

 

If I had to bet on what position group is most likely to be the culprit for a Twins rough showing in 2019....it's this one.  Too much downside.

You can say the same thing for virtually every team.

You know what they say: I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.

 

What does Tyler Wells gotta do to get some recognition—kill Superman?

THIS! HAHA. So true. The man had the best season of ANY PITCHER in the organization top to bottom, gets totally robbed of the Twins Pitcher of the Year, and not even a mention in this rotation. But we get a low A guy with a 3.75 ERA and a 1.25 whip. Not bad, don't get me wrong, but he simply isn't going to be major league ready BEFORE Wells. Frankly, I don't think Graterol will be ready first either. Thorpe (and Alcala) are the most overrated in the org in my two cents, which are on sale today for $.01

If you want to go by the numbers (which clearly you do if you're high on Wells), I'm curious why you think Thorpe is overrated. He's a year younger than Wells and was dominating hitters at AA/AAA last year while Tyler spent most of his season at Single-A. 

 

The "prospects" listed are based on likelihood of making an impact, not proximity.

 

I admit my opinion is based on a small sample of what I’ve seen while watching. Mostly because of what I saw in him in the futures game and in spring training this year. Frankly, he was not good. This my belief that he is overrated as far as major league impact, because he hasn’t done well in high pressure situations. Yes his numbers in season were good, but not amazing (3.54 era 1.24 whip). In fairness I think Thorpe is a high prospect, just not as high as you feel he is. Just a different perspective is all. Not saying he’s bad by any stretch so if that’s how it seemed I am correcting that notion.

 

I don't have a super specific definition, but from my view there are ~30 #1 starters and maybe a dozen aces. I see an "ace" as a guy who I'd be comfortable with in Game 1 of a playoff series. I guess that's the simplest way to put it.

 

I would tend to agree with you on the "#1 starter" definition, but I'm less enthusiastic about the "ace" definition. That one would end up being pretty elastic, I think and stretch out to more than the dozen you're thinking about in your head. Example: I think a lot of Twins fans would be very comfortable with Berrios starting Game 1 of a playoff series, but aren't ready to call him an "ace".

 

Berrios is a guy that I think many if not most teams would look at as a #1 starter, even if their scouting department would call him a #2. (one thing I learned from The Ringer's series on scouting was that most scouts don't project to the extremes and won't go out on a limb to put someone into more elite territory) Is he one in Boston or Cleveland or Houston? Not on their staffs, but what about New York? or Oakland or the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in Southern California Disneyland?

 

Regardless, the Twins are getting into much better position with their starters and getting closer to having a staff that can perform not only over the long haul of a season but in a short series. Berrios is terrific and will leave people drooling for years with that curve.