IndianaTwin

Hablo solomente un poco Espanol, pero bienvenido a todos.

Are you saying there are only five “true #1” pitchers in the majors? Because that’s how many guys had 200-plus innings and a 3.25 or lower FIP last year. When Berrios and Odorizzi are two of the top 20 guys in fWAR last year, that seems a lot better than a “very good #2” and a “starter who can really fill the #3 spot.”

Excellent points, both in naming the concern, but also in noting that they have seemed to get good staff.

Speaking of The Titanic, my wife had her colonoscopy yesterday. (TMI, I know.) While there, we were joking with the receptionist, who described having a friend who went to see "Titanic" in the theater. Before it started, he stood, faced the audience, and announced, "I don't want to spoil the movie for everyone, but the boat sinks." PS: It was clear by the way. I know -- WAAAAAAY TMI. PPS: I will wait until Valentine's Day is past before revealing to my wife that I've shared the results of her colonoscopy on TD.

I'll give it an A, though I have to say that the vast majority (all?) of us don't have all the information to make an accurate assessment. Most of us are like the student in the eighth row, trying to suggest that the teacher that e = cm^2, rather than the other way around.

Great article. Deserves a Like just for the picture of the kid and Gibson.

It ranks up there with Grant Balfour and Bob Walk among names you don’t want your pitcher to have.

Remember that Hill can be moved to the 60-day IL in a few days, so Chacin can get the spot later if he earns it. Effectively, with adding Maeda and dropping Graterol and Raley, this puts us at 39.... ...with several days yet to sign Taijuan Walker.

As a SQUIRREL, we much prefer you getting hit with brilliance than with a car.

Pending a physical.

Given that virtually every team goes more than five deep over the course of the season, it would be interesting to extend your list at least Nos. 6 and 7. Based on your notes section, I’m guessing that the Twins would rank significantly higher. That’s part of what I think is the strength of their rotation. I don’t think an injury to someone in the top three will have the devastating effect for the Twins as it would for the others. I’m too cheap to pay for The Athletic. As you beyond who he’s sandwiched by, does Berrios seem about right. That ranking seems low to me, considering that he’s still A bit younger than average and should improve. I do find it interesting that he’s ranked a spot ahead of Wheeler, who this board was generally enamored with and seemed to rank higher than Berrios.

Fans attending the Home Opener (See No. 3): I am your second-favorite Twins Fan.

You better believe it! I love train rides. Train rides are much more fun to me than wallowing.

Concur that it's a now a more open spot, but not I still think he has a leg up with the experience and simply to be able to have another body available in Rochester if/when needed. But seeing this front office, if he pitches reasonably well in spring training but is outdone by a rookie, I could envision them trading Chacin for a lottery pick. Teams could wait to see if the Twins drop him (or if he has an opt out), but if they can get a bit of a market for him, some team might bite.

I don’t think the Dodgers held him back/moved him to the bullpen to save money. They had a rotation of Kershaw-Buehler-Ryu-Hill and wanted to get starts to Urias and May, and they had seen that Maeda can effectively transition to the bullpen. But I’m sure they didn’t mind that it also saved them some money. :-)

I’m with you on liking the strong and deep pen and it being more valuable that the sum of its parts. Have been ever since Ward, Henke, et al. And some combination of Nathan/Crain/Neshak/Romero and more. But I think the Twins pen may have just gotten a little longer. One of the more impressive outings of last year, in my mind, was the game in which Dobnak came in down 6-1 against the Indians and threw four innings of shutout relief, effectively resetting the bullpen. In an earlier post, someone quoted Earl Weaver as saying the best place for development is long relief. I’d not be surprised to see Dobnak or Smeltzer slot into that role. And if the rotation is going well, they could do with Maeda what the Dodgers did, slide him to the pen for the stretch run and playoffs.

So, for what it’s worth, among pitchers with at least 100 innings last year, the Twins now have 5 of the top 51 in fWAR (plus Hill). Talent isn’t spread out evenly, but if the top 30 guys are the No. 1s and the next 30 are the No. 2s, etc., they have basically an average No. 1 (Berrios, 17th) at No. 1, a slightly below-average No. 1 at No. 2 (Odorizzi, 20th), average No. 2s at No. 3 and No. 4) (Bailey, 44th; Pineda, 48th), and a slightly below average No. 2 at No. 5 (Maeda, 54th). To that, add Hill, who many folks are very high on,consider that Bailey was dramatically improved in the second half, know that the time Pineda misses is at the beginning of the season rather than the end,Maeda got those numbers despite about 30 percent of his outings coming in relief. He didn’t go to the pen because he was hurting. Rather, the Dodgers had great depth and knew from prior history that Maeda is the rare starter who can transition smoothly to the pen and who gives them excellent length there. It didn’t hurt that the Dodgers saved a little money in doing so. Who’s to say the Twins can’t also lengthen their bullpen in August/September iif others pitch as well as we hope.add a lottery pick in Chacin, who is one year removed from having an ERA+ of 112 over two years in which he averaged 186 innings. and Dobnak, Smeltzer, and Thorpe. And Duran, etc.I highly doubt we have two bullpen games in the playoffs, folks. And for that we gave up cash and Graterol. No, we don’t have Cole or Verlander, but in eyeballing depth charts, I’m not sure I see anyone who has a deeper rotation. Games 3 and 4 count as wins too.

And, according to MLB Network, the Morneaudian was selected to the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2020 today, along with John Olerud, Duane Ward, and Jacques Doucet, the French voice of Les Expos de Montreal from 1969-2004.

NOW can we agree that it didn’t make sense to call the offseason a failure in late December? Or mid January? We can agree or disagree on whether we like this move (I like it), but the point is it was too early to get our shorts in a wad and call the offseason over. And the reality is we still have six weeks until opening day, and there will still be moves happening.

Check out the eighth paragraph. What do I win? http://twinsdaily.com/topic/35563-2020-blueprint-cooking-up-a-championship/

I would love to see Joe Nathan in the HOF. As the parent of two young boys at the time, I considered him hands-down the most willing to sign autographs, etc., and he seemed to set the tone so that other bullpen guys followed his lead. That said, I wouldn't have considered him as having a shot until I look at the stats you name, which seem to suggest that he's better than I've given him credit. However, I think the fact that I had to look that up to see probably suggests how he's viewed. I think he'll have a tough shot with the writers, but maybe veterans committees down the road will see him as a Ted Simmons -- really, really good, but typically under the radar. Now that I think of it, there's somewhat of a parallel with Simmons. Simmons was good under the shadow of Bench, the best catcher of all time. Nathan spent a lot of years in the shadow of Rivera, history's best closer.

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.

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.

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!

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.