chpettit19

Where does it rank on the list of possible pitching stats and when should a GM start caring about it? Is that better? When Jacob deGrom hits free agency are you telling him he's worth Pineda money cuz he just doesn't win games? I'm still yet to see anyone on here tell me what the pitcher W-L stat tells them about that individual pitcher and makes it a useful stat. A few people are adamant I'm wrong and it's important, but none of them have told me why it's important beyond saying it's interesting when compared to other stats. There are parameters set that dictate what goes into a stat and how it is earned. That is what the stat tells you. Pitcher W-L tells you a starter made it 5 innings, his team scored more runs than he gave up, and his pen never blew that lead. Or it tells you a reliever finished an inning in which his team took the lead and never gave it back. That is not useful in determining anything about those pitchers. If you can tell me what is useful about knowing Yusmeiro Petit has 6 wins this year (on it's own, not by adding in other stats) I'll listen and I'm more than willing to change my mind. If not then just accept it's interesting in relation to the past and to see deGrom never get Ws, but in and of itself the stat tells you nothing useful.

This is the point. W-L record tells you nothing about an individual player. That's the point I've been trying to make. Are ERA, WHIP, WAR, or any other stat telling you 100% of the story on that player? No. But they at least tell you something about them specifically. Pitcher W-L tells you nothing outside of a starter going 5 innings or a reliever finishing 1.

What does percentage of games started by that player being won by their team tell you? I go out there and pitch to 6.58 ERA over 20 starts, but my bullpen has an ERA of 0 and my team averages 10 runs a game when I start and they win 18 of my 20 starts. What does that tell you about me? That's the point of this. Individual W-L record tells you nothing about the individual beyond whether or not a starter completed 5 innings or a reliever completed 1. Doesn't tell you if they gave up runs. Doesn't tell you if they pitched well. In fact you can give up a ton of runs and still earn a W which would put a positive in your scouting report, but would be wrong. Individual pitcher W-L records don't tell you anything at all. Does that mean people can't like seeing them or be interested in them? No. But in terms of gathering information about the skills of an individual player it tells you nothing.

Pitcher A- 9 GS, 2-2 W-L, 1.58 ERA, 0.74 WHIP Pitcher B- 9 GS, 5-2 W-L, 4.69 ERA, 1.38 WHIP Pitcher C- 9 GS, 3-5 W-L, 4.53 ERA, 1.40 WHIP Pitcher D- 9 GS, 4-2 W-L, 2.53 ERA, 1.03 WHIP Pitcher E- 6 GS, 3-2 W-L, 0.68 ERA, 0.60 WHIP Pitcher F- 10 GS, 5-2 W-L, 4.39 ERA, 1.19 WHIP Pitcher G- 9 GS, 5-3 W-L, 4.79 ERA, 1.43 WHIP Pitcher H- 9 GS, 4-4 W-L, 2.47 ERA, 0.86 WHIP Rate these pitchers in order of who you'd want and tell me how much weight you put into their W-L record. You're the GM of the Twins trying to win a WS and these are the guys you have available to sign. Tell me how useful their W-L records are when deciding who to sign.

What do those outliers tell you about that pitcher, though? The point of pitcher wins is to tell you something about that specific player. You suggest winning 20 games says something about them (I assume something positive). What does it say, though? If you're a GM are you sprinting to trade for or sign them because they won 20 games? Or if they won 5 what does that say about them? When analyzing data, the more USEFUL metrics you have the better. Some things are absolutely noise. The point of individual stats is to tell you useful information about that individual. When that metric measures far more about your team than it does about you it is noise and not helpful.

What percent of the story would you say pitcher Ws does tell? Do you think a pitcher's W-L record tells 5-10% of their story? I'm seriously asking as I'd like to understand where you're coming from better. What do the things I outlined tell you about any of the pitchers I mentioned? Or lets just use deGrom as he's the poster boy for pitcher W-L stats not telling you anything meaningful. What do you learn about deGrom himself (we're just talking about pitcher Ws meaning something for that pitcher, not his team) from seeing his W-L record in isolation? Cuz that's really what this comes down to. If you look at just that 1 stat what percent of the story can it tell you about that player, their talents, or their performance. I would like to understand your thoughts on what you can learn from seeing a pitcher's W-L record in isolation. As you've said, and I agree, there's no uberstat that tells you the whole story. But I'd argue that there are stats that tell you basically nothing (pitching Ws), or very little (hitter RBIs need much more context).

If this is in reference to me this is not a teaching moment. I'm not claiming there's a "single uberstat in baseball." I have given many examples and explained multiple times in this thread why pitcher wins don't tell any useful information. If you can provide an example of what a "pitcher with wins or losses outside of the norm " might mean you could then possibly have a teaching moment. Up to this point you've done nothing but say Ws may not tell much, but they're important. Haven't explained why they're important, just that you think they are. I have explained, with multiple examples, why they don't tell anything useful. The "truth" does not remain that they're telling any story about a pitcher beyond they happened to finish 5 innings where their team scored more runs than the opponent (and their team didn't subsequently give up the lead in later innings), or finished 1 inning where their team happened to take the lead. Petit having 6 wins tells you nothing about his ability to prevent runs. He could have given up a lead only to have his team take it back in the bottom of an inning and earned a W. Ws don't tell you a single thing about how a pitcher performed beyond a starter finishing 5 innings or a reliever finishing 1. That is the truth of the pitcher W stat. And "others in the press" having argued against pitcher Ws has nothing to do with my stance. Not sure what that has to do with anything at all, actually.

This is all it signifies. There's no if about it. A starter made it 5 innings with the lead or a reliever finished an inning with a lead. That doesn't tell you anything meaningful about that pitcher's performance that day. It is not important. Yusmeiro Petit is tied for 3rd in the league in wins right now with 6. He's a reliever. Eovaldi (4.39 ERA), John King (Reliever), Andrew Kittredge (Reliever), Steven Matz (4.69 ERA), Frankie Montas (4.79 ERA), Eduardo Rodriguez (5.06 ERA) are amongst those pitchers tied for 8th with 5 Ws. Connor Brogdon (Reliever with 5.00 ERA), Arrieta (4.46 ERA), MadBum (4.53 ERA) are next in line with 4 Ws. Brandon Woodruff (1.58 ERA), Taijuan Walker (2.05 ERA), deGrom (0.68 ERA), Kyle Gibson (2.24 ERA), Pablo Lopez (2.73 ERA) all come in below the guys listed above in terms of Ws. Tell me which guys you'd want in your rotation right now. Eovaldi, Matz, Montas, Rodriguez, Arrieta, and MadBum or Woodruff, Walker, deGrom, Gibson, and Lopez? Ws don't tell you anything useful.

It says a starting pitcher made it through 5 innings or a relief pitcher finished 1. That is all it tells. That makes it basically useless. Twins dropped a 9 spot in the 4th inning Friday (I think it was Friday at least). Dobnak could have given up a 6 spot in the 5th, but got through it and still gotten a W that day. He could have given up his own 9 spot in the 5th and still gotten a W (Twins had scored 1 in the 3rd so were at 10). Pitcher W tells you absolutely nothing about how they pitched that day beyond a starter getting through 5 or a reliever finishing 1 inning.

Jacob deGrom is the best pitcher on the planet right now. Has been for a handful of years. No debate about it. Since 2014 his ERAs are 2.69, 2.54, 3.04, 3.53, 1.70, 2.43, and 0.68 this year. ERA isn't a trendy cocktail stat so I assume you're good with it. His wins since 2014 are 9, 14, 7, 15, 10, 11, 4, and 3. He has started 6 games (40 innings) this year and given up 3 ERs total, and has 3 wins to show for it. He has 2 games this year where he has driven in more runs than he's allowed and didn't get a win in either game. So, yes, pitcher wins are a completely useless stat. Just because we used it in the past when we didn't have the knowledge we do now doesn't mean it should still carry weight.

Humor is all this team has provided so far this year ?

There's a bunch of real grumps around here. Can't take a day off from being negative and just enjoy a silly post and relax a bit? Season has been a disaster and Tom is trying to have a little fun with it. Relax folks, the Twins are sorry for ruining your lives.

A few people making comments about the Twins screwing up by not extending Buxton like it's just them saying "now you're with us for X number of years at Y amount of money." and he has no say in it. He's showing exactly why an extension wasn't reached when the two sides discussed it this spring. His team has to be pushing for astronomical numbers as he puts up insane numbers, but the team has to be pushing for big, but not outrageous, money as he sits on the IL again. If it were as simple as saying "we'll pay you X dollars for Y performance numbers" it'd be done, but he's possibly the most complex extension candidate in baseball history. In the conversation for the best player on the planet when healthy, but is never healthy for long periods of time. Can't blame either side for there not being an extension for him in place. That also makes him one of the most complicated trade candidates ever. Any team would love to have him, but at what price? There's no equal return for a healthy Buxton (in prospect terms), but he's not worth anything on the IL. He's an even more painful Ortiz if he's traded and stays healthy the rest of his career, and the front office is run out of town for trading Mike Trout 2.0. But the front office is run out of town if there's reports this summer that they turned down a trade for 10 top 20 prospects from some team and he continues to be hurt the rest of his career. Until Buxton can stay healthy there's no easy answer on him and I don't think it's fair to criticize anyone involved in trade or contract negotiations as he's the most polarizing player you could possibly think of in terms of value.

I can't remember where I read it, but sounds like Twins offered more than that, but Greene wanted to go back to Atl. Can't blame him either. If given the choice between those two teams I'd pick the Braves right now, too.

It's both. Like the original article said. The players need to play better and make the plays they should be capable of making. And the manager needs to put his players in the best positions to give them the best chance to be successful. It's Rocco's job to hold Colome accountable for his awful pitching. Colome didn't come running out of the bullpen on his own. Rocco shares responsibility by continuing to put Colome in games when it was clear for weeks that Colome wasn't right and couldn't get outs. It was Rocco's job to put the team in the best position to win that game in Oakland and pulling his 3rd best defensive player to give himself his worst possible fielding IF (Arraez, Polanco, Blankenhorn, Tortuga left to right is atrocious and Rocco has to know that) should be something Rocco is criticized for. Yes, they are plays the guys should make, and do make 90% of the time, but Rocco also put the team in a situation that had a higher likelihood of failure by putting a pitcher on the mound that was clearly struggling at all time levels and putting his worst possible IF defense behind him. I don't think anyone has said the players shouldn't be held accountable for completely falling apart to start the year, but acting like Rocco hasn't made mistakes that put the team in less than ideal situations is ignoring a real part of the problem. None of us can speak to the clubhouse or what ST was like or if Rocco and his staff are doing things to help the players right the ship, but when almost every player on the team is playing well below expectations, and looking unprepared to play basic, fundamental baseball, one has to question if there's a failure in how things are being run that leads to such teamwide struggles.

What makes you say the farm doesn't appear to have much help? Just curious as the system is pretty well regarded around the people who write about such things for a living.

They won't add Larnach until they've gone through all the guys already on the roster. Not going to risk losing someone on waivers until they know they don't need/want them or feel Larnach is ready to come up and stick. Which could be real soon if Cave keeps doing what he's doing and Larnach is looking good in St Paul and the team keeps losing. But no reason to add him until he's replacing someone on the big league squad.

To be fair there's no reason to believe that he'd have been called up today had the Twins not been short multiple corner OFs and their 1B. It is entirely possible he still would have been called up and this was their plan all along, but this isn't exactly them saying "now he's ready and he's replacing 'player x'." Cave isn't a great player, but I don't think anyone could have honestly expected him to be this incredibly bad. Kepler is out. Garlick is out. Sano is out. The timing certainly doesn't make the optics look good and gives the impression the Twins were planning to manipulate service time from the jump, but that's ignoring a lot of other variables.

Garlick was on the 40 man already. Bringing Broxton in is more than just calling 1 guy up and sending 1 down. He would certainly help defensively and with speed on the bases, but the Twins don't steal or really care about speed on the bases (Buxton hitting behind Cruz is a pretty clear indication of how low on the priority list speed on the bases is, and my #1 annoyance about Rocco). I wouldn't argue that the skills Broxton brings are more certain than Rooker or Cave right now. But he's a quite limited player that isn't really improving things drastically. I wouldn't be mad if they called him up, and it's not an outrageous idea, but it's a lateral move, in my opinion. Kirilloff and Larnach provide a much better chance of making a real difference if they can hit the way we hope, and somewhat expect. And strangely I believe tomorrow (maybe Saturday?) is the day that Kirilloff can be called up and play the rest of the year and still get an extra year of control*. The team clearly needs a shake up of some sort to get things righted and maybe Broxton is the answer to that. But some comments come across as if people think he's a much better player than he is. He isn't Buxton 2.0. He isn't Buxton lite. He isn't a poor man's Buxton. He's a bad hitter who can run fast. *For the record I don't think the Twins kept him down simply to get an extra year of service, but I don't think they were sad about it.

Don't get the calls for Broxton. He's a career .209/.297/.388 hitter. Strikes out just as much as Sano and Cave. Definitely better speed and defense than our current corner OFs, but he wasn't available on a minor league deal with no post-ST opt out because he's a season saver. His ceiling is late inning defensive replacement. He's not the answer to the Twins' problems right now unless you're hoping the Twins become those Mariner teams that had like 9 gold glovers who all hit .200 and couldn't win.

Losing 1 player off the team drastically changed the clubhouse atmosphere? Feels like a drastic exaggeration of Rosario's impact on the clubhouse. Professional athletes are used to having teammates come and go. You think they all made it through the minors with the same teammates year to year? They barely had the same teammates from month to month or week to week in the minors. Cruz, Donaldson, Buxton, Sano, Arraez, Tortuga, etc. can't fill the void in the clubhouse that Eddie left? They're all just moping around the clubhouse cuz they don't have Eddie there to lead them and keep the atmosphere where it should be? Feels like a bad take to me.

If you're going to attach this group of Twins with the teams from nearly 20 years ago it's quite silly to say you can't speak to them in comparison to the teams 30 years ago. Unless 20 years is the cutoff for when one completely different combination of players can be compared to a current combination of players.

Agree with you on Kirilloff for sure. Wouldn't be against seeing Larnach (both of those depending how they've looked in St Paul and assuming they haven't been garbage there). But Duran and Balazovic don't solve any current issues unless your plan is to put them in the pen and give them 2 straight years without anything near starters work. If your plan is to have them be cogs in the starting rotation for the next 6 or 7 years I think that'd be a terrible mistake to make. Starting pitching hasn't been a problem for the Twins. They'll need as many starting arms as they can get to make it through this season. So we're going to need Dobnak, Shoemaker, Happ, Thorpe, Duran, Balazovic, and probably 3 or 4 other guys to start games this year. Can't afford to start cutting guys in May. Shuffling up and down between AAA and MLB, in and out of the pen, etc. is going to be necessary all year. Shoemaker is going to have to get used to starting on long rest and figure out a way to perform better than yesterday cuz he's not starting every 5 or 6 days for the entire season. Hitters are a different story. They need to start showing signs of life or changes need to happen. That doesn't mean we need Sano, Polanco, Kepler, and Garver to all start hitting .400 and slugging .800 but they have to show they're turning things around. Sano is the least of my worries (in the sense that he is the most likely to get back to his typical self, not that I love his skillset), but those other 3 I am quite concerned are just not starter quality guys. Luckily none of them are paid like elite starters and it isn't unreasonable to have Kepler as 4th OF, Garver as backup C (hopefully Jeffers starts hitting), and Polanco as utility IF.

Buxton, Cruz, Donaldson*, Arraez, and Simmons are the only bats I feel good about right now. You don't want to hit Simmons high in the order, but he's perfect in his role at the back. I'd put the other 4 in the first 4 spots in the lineup and then cross my fingers for the 5-8 spots. That's the real problem. We have 4 spots in the order that are far less than reliable right now. Part of the struggle is the argument that Polanco, Sano, and Kepler need to get their timing down so they can get going, but they're killing rallies in the mean time. Tomorrow is the cutoff for step 1 of service time stuff (I believe) so maybe we start seeing young guys in the near future if the veterans don't get going and the L's continue. *Assuming he's returning close to 100% healthy

He was drafted in 2017. Yes, he's 26, but it's not like he's been wasting away in the minors for 10 years. He's had 2 full minor league seasons. And he's not a top 100 type prospect they're ignoring. He's a decent prospect with big time power and nothing else. Kirilloff has a much bigger complaint than Rooker does.