jorgenswest

I think I have shifted my opinion. I earlier stated that they need to take the best offer. Now I believe that his decline will be slow and while the risk of injury might be greater among older pitchers all pitchers carry that risk. For the games he starts over the next three seasons, i think he will stay in the neighborhood of league average and perhaps slightly below in 2018-19. Where else are the Twins going to find that production even if he misses time due to injury? Should they trade for a prospect like May or Meyer, there is also a risk that they either won't develop or they will suffer an injury. All of us would trade Santana for a DeLeon level prospect. Beyond that I think I stick with Santana. I don't know how many starts he will make over the next three years but I think they will be hard to replace.

I pulled a group of pitchers from B-R and looked at how they performed age 34-36 here I didn't have velocity data to consider but that would have been helpful.

There are all kinds of questions surrounding whether the Twins should trade Santana. The market is a huge factor. Is it better to keep him given the limited options in or outside the organization? Is it better to trade him given the demand and supply? Will the demand be greater in July? My interest is exploring the likelihood that he will continue to be a valuable pitcher for the next three seasons that the Twins can control. I looked for a similar group of pitchers with a healthy track record and solid age 33 season as well as providing league average performance age 29-33. I used this criteria Pitchers pitched at least 750 innings in the 5 seasons age 29-33 Pitchers that had an ERA+ centered around 102 for those 5 seasons Pitchers with a good age 33 season and an ERA+ of better than league average Pitchers since 1990 and the change in bullpen usage Note- ERA+ is a searchable tool in play index. The various ERA estimators relative to league are not. At 750 innings, ERA+ will do as well as the others. It isn't as good for the age 33 season but looking at group data will give a good sample. I pulled two groups from B-R's play index. The first group was the age 29-33 group. I found a group of 66 pitchers centered at an ERA+. The second group was age 33 pitchers with a good full season at that age. I found 64 pitchers in that group. After finding the intersection of the two groups I ended up with 23 pitchers. One is Santana of course. Two others were also 33 in 2016 in J.A. Happ and Jason Hammel. This is the remaining group of 20 pitchers. Radke is in the group though he retired after age 33 due to a shoulder injury. Removing him would be cherry picking but you might consider it a group of 19. Ken Hill Pete Harnisch Kevin Gross Woody Williams Ted Lilly Brad Radke Shane Reynolds Tim Belcher Ervin Santana Jason Hammel Miguel Batista Bobby Witt Dave Burba J.A. Happ Jake Peavy Bronson Arroyo Kevin Appier Kyle Lohse Steve Trachsel Todd Stottlemyre Doug Davis Esteban Loaiza Hideo Nomo At age 33, the group had an ERA+ range of 100 to 144. Santana was 124. Comparing Santana against the median median 12-10, 195 IP, 189 H, 60 BB, 143 K, 3.83 ERA Santana 7-11, 181.1IP, 168 H, 53 BB, 149 K, 3.38 ERA The context of offense and strikeouts was a little different in 2016 than the earlier part of the chosen era but it seemed a fair comparison group. The 5 year group had an ERA+ range of 97-111, Santana was 101. median 152-144, 896.2, 862, 309, 661, 4.12 Santana 140-140, 874.1, 820, 264, 704, 3.91 So how did this group perform at ages 34 through 36? Age 34 There were some outstanding age 34 seasons. Nomo had Belcher had excellent seasons. 10 of 20 pitchers had an ERA+ of 100 or better. 9 of 20 pitchers threw at least 150 innings (Batista was a closer) so 10 in 20 were healthy full season. Peavy and Stottlemyre had good seasons while not injured in 19 and 17 starts. 2615.1 innings from the group As a group, the median ERA+ was 95.5 (100.7 ERA+ weighted by innings pitched) Age 35 Woody Williams was outstanding in his 17 starts while healthy 5 of 20 pitchers had an ERA+ of 100 or better. 8 of 20 pitchers threw at least 150 innings. Additionally Williams was very valuable in his 17 starts 2403 innings from the group As a group the median ERA+ was 86 (93.6 ERA+ weighted by innings pitched) Age 36 (19 in this group. Peavy is 36 this year) Tim Belcher had a very good season with 34 starts and an ERA+ of 111 6 of 19 pitchers had an ERA+ of 100 or better though 2 of those seasons were less than 50 innings 5 of 19 pitchers threw at least 150 innings 1426.1 innings from the group As a group, the median ERA+ was 75.5 (96 weighted by innings pitched) Innings as a group 33: 3786 34: 2615.1 35: 2403 36: 1426.1 This started as a group of 20 pitchers that had been healthy ages 29-33 while pitching well at age 33. In spite of their health, injuries were a factor age 34 to 36. Even at age 34 only 10 of the 20 provided full seasons. There is a reason to be optimistic about 2017 for Santana. Those that stayed healthy maintained their solid performance. Twelve of 20 made solid contributions. There is also a reason to be a little optimistic through 2019. The ERA+ weighted by innings shows a near league average performance which isn't easy to acquire and rare among Twin pitchers since 2011. There is also reason for concern. The innings drop off from the group of healthy pitchers is significant. Ervin Santana is a very good pitcher and valuable to any team. He could well perform as a number 2 starter again next year. There is a reasonable chance that he will be a solid pitcher the next three seasons. Perhaps a better chance than Donald Trump winning the election. Should Santana's age be a factor in the Twins decision on whether to trade him? Is there some reason to believe that there is something different about Santana compared to this group of pitchers who were also reasonable healthy through age 33? Pitching is difficult enough to acquire that they might be better off gambling on Santana staying healthy. Those that stayed healthy performed reasonably well through age 36. The Twins could trade Santana for a young prospect, but there is no guarantee that prospect will remain healthy. After looking at this group, I think I might gamble on Santana.

It looks like your in the dismiss group. If we found out almost every similar pitcher coninued to contribute at league average or found out that 1/2 of the pitchers had significantly declined over ages 34-35 it seems that would have no value to you and shouldn't have value to the Twins. Fair enough.

Would it be useful to look at a similar set of pitchers? Should we wonder how they maintained their performance from 34 to 36. I looked at B-R's similar lists but they may not be refined enough. I wonder of the following criteria will be too restrictive. -pitchers that pitched 750 innings in the 5 seasons from ages 29-33 -pitchers that had an ERA+ centered around 102 in those year -pitchers with a good age 33 season and an ERA+ of better than league average. -pitchers with careers since LaRussa changed bullpen usage If I can find a group of 15-30 pitchers that were healthy for 5 years and coming off a good age 33 season, would that give us any hint at the likelihood of Santana remaining at least league average? Should I get rid of any criteria or add any? Note- For B-R's play index search I will need ERA+ as I can't search the varied ERA estimators relative to the league. ERA+ will work fine at the 750 level. It isn't as good as the others for the age 33 season. It will help to look at the sample for the group over an individual. Anyone interested? Anyone ready to dismiss any findings now?

For comparison purposes all pitchers would have the same early career challenge. You are correct that a better comparision would be going back 5 years and comparing similar pitchers at age 33.

For his career, Santana has an ERA- of 99, FIP- of 102 and xFIP- of 100. He is a league average pitcher entering his ag 34 season. How likely is it that league average pitchers through age 33 continue to be league average from 34 to 36?

Trading an established hitter for good pitching prospect is one way to build a pitching staff. It might take three of those trades to win one, but the rewards in finding that one team control starting pitcher outweighs the losses in the other two. Starting pitching is difficult to acquire. If you can't develop it in the minors, it will cone at a high cost in free agency or trade.

I think the difference between FIP and xFIP is home run rate (which requires a large sample) and fly ball rate (smaller sample). The difference between the two does become meaningless by 500 innings pitched.

I trust that the offers are reflective of his value and that our new leadership can assess the best offer. I think they should take that best offer. If the offer isn't that exciting, it simply would reflect the reality that Santana wasn't that valuable.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/tool-basically-every-pitching-stat-correlation/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/standard-deviation-and-era-estimators/

Multiple takes can usually be found after each season. Here are a few that show up early in a google search. http://www.hardballtimes.com/evaluating-the-2014-projection-systems/ http://www.fangraphs.com/community/evaluating-2013-projections/ http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2016/1/21/10795210/marcel-pecota-steamer-zips-pitchers-projections-review On SERA http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/want-to-be-more-consistent-just-be-better/

Weather... Are you concerned about projections or just those listed on fangraphs? Would you prefer that the Twins do not use or develop their own projections? If they do project, should they lean towards the peripherals or the actual ERA? Those you see on fangraphs will rely on the peripherals and age while looking back multiple years. I hope the Twins use some model they trust in making projections.

I hope that the new front office isn't evaluating players based on their previous season stat line. He is a guy with a 3.38 ERA. He is also a guy with a 4.21 xFIP in 2016. One of those numbers isn't very useful for projection. Santana's xFIP lands him between Duffey and Milone among Twin starters. They should sell high because of his age. They should sell high because his peripherals tell a different story than his ERA.

I hope you are right. He had ERA's of just above 4 at the all star break in 2014 and 2016. While mediocre, that was much better than his value at the 2015 break following the PED suspension. Maybe this year he will get to the all star break stronger and there will be some building of interest. Levine and Falvey have to balance that chance of a value increase against the possibility that he will again have an ERA above 4 as trade talks begin or worse and he misses a start or two in June or July. The thought has peeked my interest. I may search for a group of similar pitchers at the same age and see how often they maintain their previous year's performance in the first half which I would assume would give them better value in July.

I would take the best offer and move on. I don't believe his value will be better in July. There will be more arms as non-contenders emerge and some chance that he is injured or has declined. This winter's starting pitching market is very thin. It is very likely that this is the high point in Santana's stay with the Twins. Sell.

Yes

Supplementary veterans - do they mean signings like Correia, Pelfrey, Doumit, Carroll, Suzuki, Kubel, Stauffer...?

In the off season it should be until spring training. If a team decides to drop a claimed player off their 40 in that time, the rights should go back to the original organization if he makes it through waivers. If this were the case, players that are claimed would go to organizations that truly see a need for their talents. There should be a similar rule in the summer which often involves an option and the 25 man roster. In the summer it should be 43 days (1/4 year of service time) or return to original organization.

A third catcher in the form of a Ryan Doumit who would rarely have to catch might be useful. The idea of a shuttle is interesting but possibly not practical. Seems like teams would have more of a need for a shuttle with a 25 man roster and no one does it over the long term. The Yankees rotated a lot of arms for a stretch this season by optioning, designating and claiming. They used 29 pitchers. It is hard to see how they were better off last year or in the future switching between Phil Coke, Anthony Swarzak, Kirby Yates, Tyler Olson, Ben Heller... I hope the result is an increase in platooning. More bats on the bench to counter pitching moves may reduce the value of a situational reliever. That is assuming there are more corner guys that can hit but don't have jobs.

Platooning at catcher might often leave the Twins on the wrong side of the platoon late in games. Thinking through how they want to manage those late in game situations is essential. Do they pinch hit knowing they are down to their last catcher? Do they carry a third catcher? Do they lose the platoon advantage and stick with the starting catcher?

It is possible rosters will expand to 26 players. How will teams best utilize a 26th roster spot? How should the Twins utilize it? 1) Teams could add a bat and create a platoon on a corner. Platooning was so frequent and used wisely when pitching staffs were 10 men. As extra arms appeared more valuable than platoons, few teams platoon in more than one position and many have no true platoon. If you have a 13 man pitching staff, the bench is filled with your reserve up the middle players. I look forward to seeing how teams take advantage of an extra bat. 2) Teams could add an extra arm to the bullpen and create more favorable match ups later in the game. I do not look forward to even more mid inning calls to the bullpen lengthening an already too long game. Some kind of rule like teams are allowed to make one mid inning pitching change or a minimum of three batters must be faced before a second mid inning change would be helpful. 3) Teams could stash a player from the rule 5 draft more easily. In the Twins case, that might be the best rthing use. Unfortunately changes in rule 5 eligibility a some years ago make it much more unlikely that a Johan Santana would be available. A stashed player sitting on the bench while losing a year of development and then returning to the minors for a year or two is a long time to wait for a pay off. 4) Teams could add a 6th starter. If it would truly keep arms healthy it could be a positive long term. I am skeptical that adding a 6th starter would help keep the top 5 healthy but some teams may go with this plan. I think it costs your top few starters 5 starts each with little gain. How else might teams use an extra roster spot? How should the Twins use the potential extra roster spot?

Castro's signing shows what Falvey values in a catcher and defensive metrics. It is a 180 degree turn from the Ryan era. Falvey does seem to be getting a pass on this one as those critical of the signing and skeptical of framing metrics are leaving Falvey out of the discussion for the most part. This is his first mark on the organization. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to acquire a weak hitting catcher with good receiving skills at a bargain contract. The Twins missed the boat on that one and now Falvey and the Twins are paying full retail for the skill.

I hope Garver is a future starter. There are a few reasons to be concerned. Garver is older than John Ryan Murphy. He was very old for a AA prospect. Prospects are not usually near their prime when they play that level. His defense is often referred to as improved which is better than not improved but usually not indicative of a good defender. Sickels recently wrote a report of Garver and his improved defense. You can find Sickels having a very similar take on Josmil Pinto in 2013. We can hope that Garver is a legitimate starting prospect but there are good reason to be skeptical of both his offense (due to his age at the level) and his defense. The Twins can't afford to hope on Garver. They need to be certain that he can receive the ball and give pitchers extra strikes rather than cost them strikes and give the batters more hitters counts. A plan of Garver starting as the top catcher in AAA and signing a defense first catcher for the major league team is probably the best option.

Time will tell. I hope you are right.