jorgenswest

Love the view of Britton going to back up third and turning after realizing Buxton is already there.

I don't see the Padres taking someone that they will need to take to arbitration. They should be seeking most of the 6 years of control in any player acquired. They are too far away from being competitive. I just don't see Escobar meeting their needs and they can do better than Rosario.

I don't think it conflicts and neither characterizes his approach as slap happy.

I have no thought of trading him. The Twins need pitching. If he can be a starter next year, the cost of replacing his 6th/7th inning role in terms of prospects or free agent dollars is cheaper than adding a starter. To that end, they can give a Hildenberger (or a different young pitcher) his relief role now while he shows in the rotation whether the huge discrepancies between xFIP and ERA was really poor defense and luck or whether his ERA was a better indicator of skill than xFIP and SIERA. There is a very good chance that his ERA from 2016 was not a good indicator of his skill level. Other teams find ways to stretch out pitchers. There are solid starting pitchers living on a fastball and breaking ball over 90% of the time. These seem to be two paradigms that Molitor and Allen don't want to test.

How much time would it take to stretch out Duffey? He is probably good into the mid 30s today. Seems like the Royals stretched outs their Duffy to a point where he was into the 6th inning by his third start. Peacock, Delgado, Montgomery and others have done it this season without going to the minors. The stretching out part and the third pitch part are empty words. Pitchers have been successful throwing a breaking ball and fastball over 90% of the time. Relievers are getting stretched about by other teams without going to the minors. Duffey is valuable to the bullpen but the cost of acquiring a starter is much greater than the cost of a 7th inning reliever. Duffey had the best SIERA and xFIP among their starters last year leading to the best projections among starters entering this year. His ERA awful last year was but the combination of poor defense as shown by a huge drop in double play rate and his unsustainably high hr/fb shouldn't be ignored. To me, he is much more worthy of a half season of starts than any other option they have in the organization. The Twins have an opportunity to see Hildenberger in the Duffey role and Duffey in the Hughes/Turley/Jorge/Matt/Tepesch role. If Hildenberger can come close to matching Duffey, I think Duffey will out perform the others. Maybe they will learn that both are valuable pieces of the 2018 team.

I had not heard this before. I would like to know more. Is there a study you can link? I would have been of the belief that day to day variation on performance would be a good amount of ramdom noise as well as a correlation to the skill of the current day starter.

Nice start by Gibson. At the time he was sent down, someone from the front office spoke about the reason on the Twins Insider Show. It wasn't mechanical but he needed to be more aggressive (may have wrong word). Molitor has referenced nibbling following nearly every start since his return. I sense that this might be harder to fix than a mechanical adjustment. It could be a career long battle for him.

I think there was authenticity in the fact that they hurried Hughes' return. He had another relief appearance scheduled in AAA but was brought back early when Breslow needed to be put on DL.

Isn't he on the DL? I don't get the reference.

Is there any mathematics that supports that those statistics above are meaningful for projecting his performance the next few months? Many of those numbers become meaningful in a much much larger sample. At his current sample, only strike out rate starts to be meaningful for projecting future performance. Isn't that what matters? The Twins decision to release him should be based on how they project his future performance this year. I am not arguing that many of the plate appearance and inning level numbers are not different. They are different and they are lousy. I am arguing that they are not good indicators at this sample of how he will perform the remainder of the season. They also don't indicate that he will pitch like he did on 2015 and 2016. Those samples are also small. I appreciate the discussion but I don't think I have any more to contribute. It is hard to put aside my math/statistics background when engaging in discussion related to data.

Walk rates very more than strike out rates and take longer to stabilize. It could also be random variation. Is there a significant difference in his pitch level data? That would be telling. The reason performance varies greater for relievers than any other position is not the variability of their skill level but rather the size of the sample for which their performance is based. It doesn't matter to the data whether you are a starter or reliever. They begin to stabilize at the same point. He what's walked 12 batters in the 141 batters he has faced. Might be 136 - do they count an intential walk as a batter faced when you don't throw a pitch? That can even happen to the first batter you face. In 2015, he walked 13 batters in 149 batters faced. Is it enough difference in this sample to support a change in skill level? Last year he walked 4 in 186. Likely random variation due to sample and not a skill change. All I am trying to say is that we can't go by the at bat level or inning level data to make conclusions about how he will perform the remainder of the season. The sample doesn't support that conclusion. The Twins may well have pitch level data related to command that does support a change in skill level.

It is no more possible to measure leadership with the data available to us as it is to use the data in the small sample of a partial relief season in any meaningful way. The data is a partial AAA relief season has less meaning. It simply isn't useful in projecting how a relief pitcher is going to perform the remainder of the season. Changing catchers and bringing in veteran leadership seemed to be the two roster priorities for the new front office. I don't have any meaningful tools to argue against it. That Falvey and Levine continue to roster them is more convincing to me that they bring value than any partial season relief stats used to support their removal. I strongly believe that the eyes seeing them pitch and seeing them in the clubhouse are more meaningful than the numbers. It comes down to having confidence in those eyes. If those are eyes are poorly skilled, the Twins have much bigger problems than low leverage relievers and a back up catcher.

If we are judging by Belisle's data, there isn't enough sample to suggest he is a less skilled pitcher from his previous few seasons. His velocity hasn't dropped and strike out rates are not significantly different. The sample is too small to look at other batted ball results or innings based results to suggest he has changed his skill level. He could just as likely perform similar to last year's numbers the rest of the way as repeat this year's numbers. We really rely on the eyes of the staff that sees him every day as well as trust in those who have pitch level data beyond our access to make the best decision about Belisle. Breslow hasn't been effective in a while and is used almost exclusively in low leverage situations. I can't measure the value of his leadership in the clubhouse to know if it is worth the low leverage level load he has been given. It is hard to imagine the value he brings, but I am not in the clubhouse or bullpen. Without that experience, I realize I am pretty limited in my ability to support his removal.

The front office was very clear in November and again in spring training that they thought the Twins had a void in veteran leadership. They sought veterans that they felt had brought those leadership skills that were missing. They landed on Belisle, Breslow and Gimenez. Being a veteran doesn't equate to being a leader. It is a talent. Two quotes from Berardino's culture club article this spring http://www.twincities.com/2017/03/18/minnesota-twins-build-culture-club-with-five-low-cost-veterans/ “You can have leadership in the front office, you can have leadership in the coaching staff, but if you don’t have leadership in the clubhouse I think it’s a real challenge to navigate 162 games, especially with the amount of youth we’ve had on this team.” “You may see a signing where you may scratch your head and say, ‘Why did these guys spend this kind of money on that player at this stage of his career?’ ” Levine told those Twins fans. “I assure you it’s probably because this guy, in our opinion, has a chance to be a leader in the clubhouse.” Does the FO like old guys? Not particularly. They do value those that have the talent and skill of leadership. Perhaps that leadership helped the team navigate through a sweep by Cleveland and not carry that disappointment into the next series.

There are almost no meaningful in season metrics for relief pitchers. There just isn't enough sample. At this point, you could look to changes in ground ball rate and strike out rate from career or last three season norms. It is still too early to point to a change in walk rates for any of the Twin relievers. The pitch level data would tell more. Has there been a drop in velocity? Has there been a change in spin rate?... Compared to the last three years, Belisle's ground ball rate is the lowest it has been and his strike out rate is better than his year with the Rockies but lower than his seasons with the Cardinals and Nationals. He did face more pitchers in the NL increasing those NL strike out rates. His velocity is in line with that of the last three years. There is little else on his fangraphs page useful to support an argument that he brings a different level of skill from the previous three seasons. The front office would be wise to ignore most of the batted ball data and standard statistics at this point. The skilled eyes of a trained staff are vital in this assessment. Breslow is a different case. He hadn't been effective for the last three years. The question coming into camp was whether some changes he made in the offseason would lead to better results. He also is best used as a situational pitcher. Data in his sample against only left handed batters is very small and virtually useless in this partial season sample. Comparing the last 4 seasons to when he was more effective, there is a drop in velocity that continues this year. Is he their most effective option to get out a single left handed hitter? The eyes of the staff can best make that decision. Given that 114 of 131 batters faced have come in low leverage situations, I think we know what the eyes of the staff think. There is a lot of low leverage work in the Twins bullpen, perhaps Breslow brings value in the bullpen while not pitching that is worth giving him a good share of the low leverage load.

Relievers go from effective to ineffective very quickly. One injury at 33 and a downtick in velocity might be all it takes. Any multiyear extension seems like a bad idea. If he will take it, overpay on a one year extension. If 3/21 is the market, would 1/10 be enough?

Agree. Though I do believe if they find a better closer he is still useful coming in with men on base earlier in the game. With someone on first, he might be the best option to get a double play. Not sure he is my choice with runners on second and third and a strike out is needed. I need Andrew Miller for that case.

I think we disagree in how we value experience in AA and AAA. Given that he has no AAA time, I don't think he is likely to be successful in the majors in August. Once he has shown sustained success in AAA, it will be time for him to struggle in the majors. This is a pitcher who just passed 100 innings in AA. I think there is a lot to learn with 15 to 20 starts in AAA. I think a midseason move to AAA is best for his development. Moving to the majors without the development time in AAA could slow his development. With adequate development, I think he can help in his first year. I don't think you speed up that process by skipping significant time in AAA and going to the majors.

Absolutely. Good point. Though I don't expect he will be helpful this year. I also don't expect a waiver claim to be helpful. Pavano and Rauch far outperformed the first 3/4 of their seasons after joining the Twins. Gonsalves seems almost as likely to surprise with a good 6 weeks. Pitching will be very expensive in July and though the Twins did find inexpensive pitching as suggested the wise one, I wanted to add that those deals took place after the trade deadline.

The Twins can wait until August as they did with Pavano and Rauch and get a cheap waiver deal on a veteran having a bad season. Should they wait to see which leftover veterans can pass through waivers after the trade deadline? They certainly will have more leverage at that time.

By what measure? I tried wOBA, RC+ and neither was that bad. I am thinking it must be WAR but WAR has a significant problem comparing across positions and doesn't in any way project future value. Playing LF he will get significant positional adjustment that he wouldn't get as a CF. The reality is the sum of the CF WAR is almost twice the sum of all LF WAR and left fielders as a group have the lowest combined WAR mostly due to positional adjustment.

If they felt Randy Rosario was ready, it would have good to have had patience with him. Busenitz will turn 27 this year. Given the long term of his minor league performance, he is more likely a 13th/14th pitcher that shuttles back and forth rather than a guy you invest a few years into. When Hughes and Santiago return, he will likely move back to Rochester. I would prefer him over Breslow and Hughes but acknowledge they need some guys with options that can be rotated through. As long as they don't DFA him, we will see him again. At his age, he is going to need to perform when he gets the chance.

Is the best no power OF example Ben Revere? Can Granite match his speed and defense? If triples are a measure, Granite isn't in Gordon's class when comparing minor league numbers. The Twins need to be patient with Wade and keep developing him as a hitter. He needs to be more aggressive on pitches he can drive at the risk of taking fewer walks. Suggesting he needs more time to develop does not equate to a lost cause. Seeing Rosario as a better investment in at bats right now as compared to Granite does not equate Granite to a lost cause. Comparing him to Mastroianni does not either. Can a better match be found?

Granite's career OBP/SLG in the minors closely matches Darin Mastroianni with a .01 difference in OBP and .08 difference in SLG. They match similarly in the scouting reports of their defense. They both had outstanding age 24 seasons though Matroianni's was at AA and a Granite is in the midst. Mastroianni's ability to get on base did not translate to the majors leagues. Major league pitchers have no trouble attacking hitters that aren't a threat to go deep. The same might be said about LaMonte Wade. He really needs to work on driving the ball in AA this year before he is advanced. I don't see either as a threat to Rosario or an option to start without developing some power. Wade has a chance but he has work to do.

A few notes on Rosario and 1000 plate appearances. 1) He hasn't been good. 2) Comparisons like this are not parallel. I don't think Rosario is being compared to the first 1000 plate appearances of others. He is being compared to their record at the end of their career. Joe Rudi, for example, was not very good in his first 1000 plate appearances and should have been below Rosario. 3) Frank Delahanty and George Barclay have lower career OBPs. They played over 100 years ago though. Six other players are under .300. Four of 6 played this year. Their careers aren't finished yet. My apologies if the search was comparing all players in their first 1000 plate appearances. That would be a more interesting comparison. I wonder how many other Joe Rudi's would be in the group to offer some hope in Rosario.