Cap'n Piranha

Sure, we acquired him in the rule 5 draft, and kept him because of the trade. But this was also prior to 2011, when the Twins honsetly thought they'd be competing for another AL Central title, and Diamond wasn't really showing the ability to be a major league ready pitcher. Had we taken Diamond prior to this year, when the expectations were to lose 90+ games, I would've agreed that we should let Diamond pitch out of the bullpen. At the end of the day, Scott Diamond is a valuable piece moving forward, and Bily Bullock is not; the two will always be tied to each other.

You kind of contradict yourself here by theorizing that the offer maybe wasn't enough, but then bashing Ryan for not taking it. How do we know what Terry Ryan was offered for The Hammer? What if it was a slightly better package than what we got for Frankie? Would you have supported trading him for a couple of replacement-type players with chances to be starters? Unless someone has hard, indisputable proof that TR passed up quality pitching in July, we all need to stop savaging him. After all, it's not like TR can just choose whoever he wants in a deal, the other team has to say yes too. I personally think it's absolutely reasonable that Terry Ryan's plan is to sign a couple free agent pitchers, and fill out his rotation with some combo of Diamond, Gibson, Hendriks, Deduno, and others. With even a league-average rotation, a line-up of Span, Revere, Mauer, Willingham, Morneau, Plouffe, Doumit, Dozier/Florimon, Carroll/Casilla is good enough to compete in the Central. If they're not competitive in July next year, you can flip Willingham, Span, and Morneau for quite a bit at the deadline, and start the youth movement.

Seeing as how Billy Bullock is the reason we have Scott Diamond, I'm perfectly happy we don't have to add him to the 40 man. Unless you would rather have a AA reliever with approximately a 1:1 K/BB ratio, and close to a 2 WHIP over a MLB starter with approximately a 4:1 K/BB ratio, a 1.19 WHIP, and a 2.97 ERA. If you really feel that way, I'm going to go ahead and ignore any baseball-related opinion you have in the future.

Obviously the Twins system is short on top-tier pitching prospects, but where would the system rank if we considered only hitters? It seems like we have a ton of solid, high-upside bats, with 2-3 at practically every level AA and lower. Given our preponderance of offense, particularly in the outfield, should we be talking to the Mariners about one of their top pitching prospects?

What is the thinking on Danny Santana as a prospect at shortstop? The Twins (if everything goes according to plan) basically have an entire team of decent to good prospects 1-3 years away from the bigs (C-Herrmann, 1B-Parm, 2B-Rosario, 3B-Sano, LF-Benson, RF-Hicks, OF/DH-Arcia) except for short. While I am one of those who thinks Dozier can become a perfectly acceptable player there, if he should not pan out, we really don't seem to have that stand-out prospect. Florimon would be ok as a 9 hitter playing elite defense, Beresford has been somewhat frisky at NB this year, and Levi has been something of a disappointment in his first go-around--is Danny Santana a possible #1 shortstop prospect?

It would be an above-average rate, but only by half a run. The Twins are averaging 4.5 runs a game, and with the 19 and 14 run games removed, the Twins have scored 75 runs in Diamond's 15 starts, for a tidy 5.0 runs/game. Using a stat that I created, which I call Expected Win-Loss (or xWL for short), Diamond SHOULD have a record of 12-5, which is pretty decent (if this stat already exists elsewhere, I abdicate the credit for it, I just haven't seen it anywhere). The stat is calculated by calculating how many earned runs the bullpen would be expected to surrender in however much of that particular game the starter leaves to the bullpen, then adding that to the earned runs the starter gave up. If the resulting number is less than the average runs scored by the offense, the starter is credited with an "expected win", indicating that he pitched well enough to win your average game. If that number is more, the pitcher is given an "expected loss", meaning the starter did not do enough to put the team in position to win the average game. The calculation is below. Expected Runs Allowed=(((9-X)/9)*Y+Z) X=Starter's IP in that game Y=Bullpen ERA Z=Starter's Earned Runs in that game Below are the xWL for all Twins starting pitchers this year Blackburn: 5-12 Deduno: 3-3 DeVries: 6-4 Diamond: 12-5 Duensing: 3-5 Hendriks: 3-5 Liriano: 8-9 Marquis: 2-5 Pavano: 4-7 Swarzak: 1-3 Walters: 4-3 Thus, the only Twins pitchers that have consistently given the team a chance to win are Diamond, DeVries, Walters, and Deduno. Every other starter was more likely to not keep the team in the game.

Are there Clowns to your left, Jokers to your right, here you are?

I would keep Kepler in E-Town so he can experience being a key cog in a playoff run. Let him start next year in Beloit along with Buxton, Goodrum, and Walker.

I'd prefer to see the Twins keep Morneau for next year and see if we can contend with him. If we're out of it, hopefully he's having a vintage-Morneau year, and can be flipped at the deadline. Meanwhile, tell Parmelee that he will be the everyday 1B in Rochester, hitting clean-up, and to be ready to play 1B for the Big Club as soon as mid-July 2013. This will give us a nice little nucleus of prospects coming up at the same time (Revere, Dozier, Parmelee, Hicks, Arcia, and Gibson all becoming big league regulars within the space of two years), and helps shorten the gap to our next wave of talent (Sano, Rosario, Kepler, Buxton, Berrios, Santana, Goodrum, Boyd, and Vargas, all of whom should arrive in 2014-2016).

I think the prospect of a top 5 of the order of Hicks, Herrmann, Arcia, Parmelee, and Benson next year also helps the case for Rochester staying with the Twins.

Right now, I say ride the Mornie train for as long as you can. If the Twins can pick up some decent starting pitching this off-season, there's no reason they can't compete with the Tigers and Sox by trotting out Span-Revere-Mauer-Willingham-Morneau-Plouffe-Doumit as their top 7 every day. Ideally, Mornie is his old self next year, and the Twins are back to being competitive. Runner-up scenario is Justin is good, but the team's not, and we flip him at the deadline for a huge haul.

This team is 2-3 starting pitchers away from competing next year (and had Pavano, Baker, and Gibson not been injured this year, who knows where we'd be). It makes zero sense to trade a bat unless you're getting a king's ransom in return, because a top 7 of Span, Revere, Mauer, Willingham, Morneau, Plouffe, and Doumit is as good as any top 7 in the AL Central, and can hold their own against any top 7 in the league. The Twins took the pu-pu platter for Liriano because they are clearing space to sign starting pitching in the offseason (I hope). They couldn't risk offering Liriano 12m+ and having him jump on it, eating up money for other free agents. Therefore, getting something is better than getting nothing. It's also worth remembering that most of us were pretty upset when we traded Billy Bullock for Scott Diamond prior to last year. Thus far, that's looking like a pretty good trade.

Actually, in looking at the numbers, the Twins offense is most inept when Doumit catches (I was incorrect in one calculation I made earlier, concerning the average number of runs the Twins offense puts up when Doumit catches, which I have since corrected, in addition to verifying all other calculations). The Twins score, on average, 5 runs per game with Mauer catching. They drop a whole run, to 4, when Butera catches. They drop another half run, to 3.5, when Doumit catches. I also don't see any reason why the Twins can't trade Morneau for prospects and to open up spending space for next year, then switch Doumit, Mauer and Willingham between 1B, LF and DH. With Mauer, and once in a while Doumit catching, you could even play Parmelee some more, instead of letting him rot on the bench.

So obviously you skipped over my post where I asked when coincidence becomes causation. So obviosuly you've missed all my points where I'm asking why not expand the sample size. So obviosuly you didn't notice where I said this was only in the context of this year. So obviously you believe players can't improve or worsen from the year prior--after all, it's not like Andrew McCutcheon, MVP candidate, hit .259 last year. Jose Reyes clearly is the best-hitting shortstop in either league, since he was last year. Melky Cabrera's ceiling is obviously a guy who's going to hit around .270/.320/.370 with single digit homers, since those are his approximate numbers over FIVE years. I'm not saying any of those three instances mean Butera is suddenly the greatest catcher to pitch to ever. I'm just saying there is an incredible statistical anomaly that has now hit a level where it moves beyond short-lived blip on the radar, and becomes, let's see if there's anything to this. Oh and by the way, I used 95 games, or about 60% of the season. If 60% of something is not a large enough sample size to draw a conclusion, why is 40% of something enough to wreck a conclusion?

If you noticed on page 1, I gave Butera's numbers minus Liriano. Still ridiculously better than Mauer/Doumit. I also provided the numbers for Diamond and Pavano, who are the only pitchers all 3 guys have caught. While Pavano's numbers are largely a wash. Diamond's are much better with Butera, especially versus Mauer. This also doesn't address the question of why not let Butera catch some more of these guys to find out? What if Blackburn can be a serviceable starter when pitching to Butera? There's only one way to find out...

Then pray tell me, what part of my analysis was shaky? Do you dispute the numbers I presented? Am I inaccurate in concluding (in the SSS of 2012 I'm using) that the starting pitching has been historically awful with either Mauer or Doumit behind the plate, but playoff-caliber with Butera behind the plate? And did I not state that all I was interested in was expanding the sample size to see if the current disparity of staff performance based on starting catcher would bear out over a large sample size? Again I ask, since no one seems to have an answer, what is the problem with using the last 67 games of this lost season (we're 11 behind Baltimore and Oakland, who are tied for the second wild card. If even one of them goes 33-34, we would have to go 44 and 23 just to tie them. And that's assuming Toronto, Tampa or Boston don't heat up) to explore this? Especially since the worst case scenario (the staff doesn't maintain these numbers with Butera behind the plate, leading to us losing a ton of games) actually helps us, as we get a better draft pick. I'll ask one more time--what is a tangible, feasible downside to starting Butera at catcher 3-4 times a week?

Any particular reason? Or is this nothing more than an attempt to pad your post count total, for whatever reason?

Ask and you shall receive. Butera's numbers without Liriano. 10 games, 58 IP (average of better than 5.2 IP/start), 3.88 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, 5.3 K/9, 3.8 K/BB, 1 homer every 8.1 innings, and the Twins have a 6-4 record in those games. In other words, even without good Frankie, Butera gets pitchers deeper in the game, with an ERA more than 2 runs below Mauer and Doumit, while allowing almost .4 fewer baserunners per inning, a K/9 rate similar to Mauer but better than Doumit, a K/BB ratio almost double Mauer's, and almost quadruple Doumit's, and about half the homeruns. Again, I mentioned in my opening post, and all since, that I am aware this is a small sample size, but at some point, every thing is. My question with this thread was to ask two simple questions; when does this SSS stop being a SSS, and why is it not worth determining the answer to that question?

So in otherwards, all credit goes exclusively to the pitcher? A catcher running out to the mound, or a pitching coach noticing something in his mechanics makes no difference to the pitcher? If so, Rick Anderson shoudl go to jail for stealing from the Twins organization for years. I'm also not debating the relative baseball IQ's of Mauer and Butera, simply pointing out a group of numbers, in almost every meaningful way, indicates over a short time-frame that the Twins starting pitching is much better with Butera behind the plate calling the game than Mauer, almost laughably so. At what point does this stop being coincidence, and start being causation? And in an undeniably lost season for this organization, doesn't it behoove them to find out? Perhaps Butera simply relates better to our current staff. As an example, no one would deny that Mike Martz is an offensive genius when it comes to the NFL. However, his inabalitiy to work with others led directly to him being largely a failure during his career. I should also mention I'm not advocating for Butera to start 6 times a week, just wondering if maybe it's worth finding out if this success is sustainable long-term. In the scope of only the 2012 season, how exactly does it hurt the organization to do this experiment? Worst case scenario, Butera can't continue this level of success with the staff, the line-up produces a few less runs, and we lose 90 games and finish 4th or 5th in the Central (which might actually be the best long-term scenario, as it could improve our draft standing for 2013). Best case scenario, the staff continue to excel with Butera behind the plate, the Twins sneak past the 70 win mark, and Justin Morneau and his 14m salary become that much more expendable (since Doumit and Mauer would now be splitting 1B and DH duties), freeing up money to sign starting pitching FA's in the offseason. Again, what is the downside here, other than having to watch Butera bat an extra 5-10 times a week? Although that is certainly excruciating, isn't it worth it to find out if the numbers I posted above are small-sample-size fluke, or emerging trend?

If you're trading a guy with the ceiling of the next Miguel Cabrera, you better get more than 1 major league starter back, and that includes David Price. While I don't think Sano is untouchable, I don't think there is any team that would give up what I would want in return for him (I'm talking a King Felix and Danny Hultzen package, or a Taillon/Cole package). I don't think either Sea or Pit says yes to that, even if we included Arcia and another piece.

And of course it's unthinkable that Drew Butera might have improved his game from last year, or that Liriano, Diamond, Deduno, Walters, or DeVries (none of whom were either with the Twins last year, or were caught consistently by Butera) might be responding better to him this year.

Before you laugh, consider the following-- Joe Mauer has started 42 games at catcher. The starting pitchers in those games have pitched an average of less than 5.1 innings, while compiling a 6.53 ERA, a 1.63 WHIP, and given up a homer every 4.2 innings. Meanwhile, they have compiled 5.4 K/9, a 2.0 K/BB ratio, and the team is 17-25 in those games, despite averaging 5 runs a game, a figure that would put us 3rd in all of baseball for runs scored. Ryan Doumit has started 33 games at catcher. The starting pitchers in those games have pitched an average of slightly more than 5 innings, while compiling a 6.12 ERA, a 1.59 WHIP, and given up a homer every 5.1 innings. Meanwhile, they have compiled 4.5 K/9, a 1.5 K/BB ratio, and the team is 12-21 in those games, despite averaging 5.5 runs a game, a figure that would put us 1st in all of baseball for runs scored. Drew Butera has started 20 games at catcher. The starting pitchers in those games have pitched an average of slightly more than 6 innings, while compiling a 3.34 ERA, a 1.15 WHIP, and given up a homer every 12.1 innings. Meanwhile, they have compiled 8.2 K/9, a 3.0 K/BB ratio, and the team is 11-9 in those games, despite averaging only 4 runs a game, a figure that would put us 24th in all of baseball for runs scored. Before you say this is simply an effect of Butera catching Liriano, consider some of the other pitchers on the staff. Scott Diamond, in 2 starts with Butera, has pitched an average of 7 innings, with a 0.00 ERA, a 0.71 WHIP, 6.4 K/9, 10 K/BB, and not given up a homer. With Mauer, it's 8 games, less than 6.1 IP, 4.35 ERA, 1.49 WHIP, 5.3 K/9, 3.2 K/BB and a homer every 6.1 innings. With Doumit, it's better than 6.2 IP, 2.63 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 3.6 K/9, 2.2 K/BB, homer ever 27.3 IP. With Pavano, Butera's 5 starts have yielded an average of 5.1 IP, 6.15 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, and 4.8 K/9. While all of these numbers are slightly worse than Pavano with Mauer (6.2 IP, 5.93 ERA, 1.02 WHIP, and 2.6 K/9 in 2 games), and Doumit (5.2 IP, 5.87 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, and 5.9 K/9 in 4 games), the following two numbers are WAY in Butera's favor; 14 K/BB and a homer every 26.1 IP. Those numbers dwarf both Mauer (2 K/BB, homer every 6.2 IP) and Doumit (3 K/BB, homer every 3.2 IP). What Butera has done exceptionally well is limit hits and homeruns, which is directly leading to his success as a catcher. Does Liriano's hot run skew these results? Yes. But I think the evidence is compelling enough that its worth running Butera out there 3-4 times a week, and see if this continues. After all, I'm fine giving up 1 to 1.5 runs of offense a game, if it means saving 2-3 runs a game.

Does Joe Benson still have that hippie hair? If so, he needs to take a page out of Babe Plouffe's playbook and chop it off. Maybe that will get his fortunes turned around.

According to Jon Heyman (via mlbtraderumors--link below), Appel is leaning against signing with the Pirates, because he wants more than the 3.84m bonus the Pirates can give, and not surrender a first round pick. I'm not sure I understand this move; isn't next year's different class, at least at this point, considered a stronger one than this year's? Therefore wouldn't Appel project to fall right aroudn this spot again, or does he think he'll be able to improve his stock that much in one year? Furthermore, doesn't the fact that he exhausts his eligibility at Stanford next year reduce his bargaining power? Basically, it seems like Appel, thanks to Scott Boras, is walking away from nearly 4 million dollars gauranteed, in the hopes that he moves up to the 1st-3rd slot. Maybe I'm missing something, but if I'm not, I'm kinda surprised, because I thought Stanford was supposed to be for smart kids. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/07/latest-on-pirates-mark-appel.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter