How much credit does Anderson get for Hughes

[Halsey Hall]

I give Hughes the credit, and very little to Anderson. I'm not a believer in him.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Interestingly enough, here is Hughes through 13 starts in 2010 (the majority of which were in the new Yankee Stadium):

13 GS, 82.1 IP, 10-1 W-L, 3.17 ERA (0 unearned runs), 8.5 K/9, 0.8 HR/9, 1.1 WHIP

 

Compared to this year, 2014 with the Twins:

13 GS, 82.1 IP, 7-2 W-L, 3.17 ERA (1 unearned run), 7.9 K/9, 0.8 HR/9, 1.1 WHIP

 

The difference? He's traded 1.8 BB/9 for 1.8 H/9 (also lost 0.6 K/9).

 

A lower BB/9 should hopefully be more sustainable than a lower H/9, although it would be pretty crazy to stay at 0.9 BB/9! That's lower than Radke's career low (1.0, career 1.6), lower than every season of Carlos Silva except his historic 2005 (0.4, career 1.7), almost as low as Bob Tewksbury's lowest (0.8, career 1.5).

 

Also, 2010 was his first full year starting after 3 partial years of injury and relief, so he should be stronger this year too.

[PseudoSABR]

I give Hughes the credit, and very little to Anderson. I'm not a believer in him.

Just curious, but are you willing to expand on your take?

[gil4]

I'm going to disagree here. I think coaching is probably one of the more unrecognized talents in baseball, and I suspect that this is going to get a lot more scrutiny as the money ball people realize there's an inefficiency here.

 

I agree with that. The experience level of the team probably has some influence on that, and personalities can override the knowledge and methods side of the equation.

 

I don't see them coming up with WAR values for managers and coaches, but I do think that a good staff is worth a few wins over a bad one. It's unfortunately impossible to quantify.

If they haven't tried already, I am surprised. If they don't in the future, I will be shocked.

[PseudoSABR]

If you're going to take that angle then it's also fair to note that those guys with less raw talent also were the types of pitchers that fit his coaching style. The real indictment of Anderson, IMO, was that he wasn't even able to maximize the performances of the types that fit his mantras.

 

That said, Hughes has been an unmitigated success thus far and that should be given as a credit to Anderson.

My point is the Twins overemphasized giving him guys that already profiled as pitch-to-contact (at best)--rather than letting Anderson work with pitchers who had better stuff and velocity (who could, I don't know, actually benefit from Anderson's philosophy). By giving Anderson guys who already get the pitch-to-contact mantra, Anderson's capacity for influence isn't maximized, it's made redundant.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

hmm - that is interesting.

 

I would assume the successful pitchers are the ones that can drink the pitch to contact kool-aid but keep the style that made them successful.

 

Pitch to contact (or any other philosophy) should be integrated or merged with an established pitcher's style, rather than replacing it.

 

I think the quote about Hughes going back to the things that made him successful in the past (before the micro tinkering of last season) can be a credit to the relationship of coach and player.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

I am of the opinion that coaching has fairly limited influence on players. I don't buy into the line of thinking that coaching changes the player all that much. If coaching was the key then everyone in the Dodgers system should be pitching close to the same as Clayton Kershaw. They have the same coaches the same system etc. and yet only one Kershaw. Why? Talent. He has a rare talent that few posses.

 

Certainly he has been coached throughout his career on how to throw etc but by the time he hits the big leagues he doesn't need much coaching as he is a coach unto himself. He knows what he needs to do and now he needs to execute it. You can mess with mechanics and have thoughts and theories but in the end it is the pitcher and the thing between his ears that is important. There is only so much you can teach. If there was a pitching coach that turned everyone into Kershaw then by all means give them credit. Otherwise it appears to me that a pitching coach is a pitching coach is a pitching coach IMO.

 

I will agree that the people who think Mr. Anderson sucked ala Liriano need to buck up and give him credit for Hughes.

 

I respectfully disagree about the coach having little influence. Unless we have actually played professional baseball, we have very little knowledge about what effect the coaches have on players. I have a friend in my home town, Statesville, N.C. named Herm Starrette. Herm was a pitching coach for a number of major league teams (the World Champion Phillies, Braves, Brewers, Giants and Red Sox). Herm told me he helped turn mediocre pitchers into millionaires. He also told me that a good pitching coach had to know when to leave well enough alone. For example, he said he didn't have to do much with Steve Carlton, other than help him stay on his routine. He told Tug McGraw, I may not be able to help you, but I won't hurt you. A lot of what he did was psychological, whether it was a kick in the pants or encouraging words to a struggling pitcher. But a lot had to do with a pitcher's technique, stamina, pitch selection, attitude, and knowledge. Almost every game, he had to decide when to pull a pitcher. We have no idea of all the things that are involved in a pitching coach's job. Then even if he does his job perfectly, his reputation among fans is dependent upon whether the pitchers win or lose. So I can't be too hard on pitching coaches. I know one of the best coaches who ever was paid to coach pitchers. There's a whole lot we fans don't know about coaching.

[Dman]

I respectfully disagree about the coach having little influence. Unless we have actually played professional baseball, we have very little knowledge about what effect the coaches have on players. I have a friend in my home town, Statesville, N.C. named Herm Starrette. Herm was a pitching coach for a number of major league teams (the World Champion Phillies, Braves, Brewers, Giants and Red Sox). Herm told me he helped turn mediocre pitchers into millionaires. He also told me that a good pitching coach had to know when to leave well enough alone. For example, he said he didn't have to do much with Steve Carlton, other than help him stay on his routine. He told Tug McGraw, I may not be able to help you, but I won't hurt you. A lot of what he did was psychological, whether it was a kick in the pants or encouraging words to a struggling pitcher. But a lot had to do with a pitcher's technique, stamina, pitch selection, attitude, and knowledge. Almost every game, he had to decide when to pull a pitcher. We have no idea of all the things that are involved in a pitching coach's job. Then even if he does his job perfectly, his reputation among fans is dependent upon whether the pitchers win or lose. So I can't be too hard on pitching coaches. I know one of the best coaches who ever was paid to coach pitchers. There's a whole lot we fans don't know about coaching.

 

You bet and I am willing to acknowledge all of that, but every pitching coach does that. The question is can he make just any pitcher good enough to be a good to great MLB pitcher? I doubt it. The link that people want to make is that the coach is the difference maker when a player performs well or poorly. The problem is that coaching is static so it should have essentially the same effect on every player. The coach offers advise etc from his perspective and experience and it is basically the same for each player thus improvement should be made.

 

If you are going to state that the coach makes the player better then all players should get better and not worse under the coaches watchful eye. This does not happen in baseball. Some pitchers do well (i.e Phil Hughes) and some poorly (Pelfrey) with the same coach. You can do this for any team in the majors. So how do we correlate the coach with player performance when some get better and some worse under the same coach? It can't be the coach that makes the difference, it is the player and each player is different.

 

If some players do better and others poorly how can we honestly say the coach makes the players better or worse? I don't think we can. You can't have it both ways. That is the problem when you assign blame to the coach instead of the player. It makes everyone look crazy because the results vary from player to player and year to year. It is the same coaching the same instruction it just produces different results typically not always positive.

 

I do agree that a coaches greatest value to his team and players is more psychological than instructional at the MLB level. Believing in your players and putting them in positions to succeed is important because most every player seems to agree that confidence is the one thing that can make them successful.

[drivlikejehu]

Anderson is part of an organizational weakness that we've seen over the years when it comes to starters without the quality pitches needed to attack the strike zone. I would put much more of the blame on management for the pitchers he has been provided to work with, but overall I don't think he's very effective.

 

Hughes is clearly a guy that takes the lead on his own approach and adjustments. Between that and the fact he's new to the team, I don't see much reason for Anderson to get credit.

[diehardtwinsfan]

You bet and I am willing to acknowledge all of that, but every pitching coach does that. The question is can he make just any pitcher good enough to be a good to great MLB pitcher? I doubt it. The link that people want to make is that the coach is the difference maker when a player performs well or poorly. The problem is that coaching is static so it should have essentially the same effect on every player. The coach offers advise etc from his perspective and experience and it is basically the same for each player thus improvement should be made.

 

If you are going to state that the coach makes the player better then all players should get better and not worse under the coaches watchful eye. This does not happen in baseball. Some pitchers do well (i.e Phil Hughes) and some poorly (Pelfrey) with the same coach. You can do this for any team in the majors. So how do we correlate the coach with player performance when some get better and some worse under the same coach? It can't be the coach that makes the difference, it is the player and each player is different.

 

If some players do better and others poorly how can we honestly say the coach makes the players better or worse? I don't think we can. You can't have it both ways. That is the problem when you assign blame to the coach instead of the player. It makes everyone look crazy because the results vary from player to player and year to year. It is the same coaching the same instruction it just produces different results typically not always positive.

 

I do agree that a coaches greatest value to his team and players is more psychological than instructional at the MLB level. Believing in your players and putting them in positions to succeed is important because most every player seems to agree that confidence is the one thing that can make them successful.

 

I don't see the absolute here. You can say the same about a manager then, or a teacher. Yet we all know that there are good managers and bad, good teachers and bad. I'm guessing most of us can give examples of both.

 

I don't think it's true because it doesn't take into account things like personality. Some people teach a certain way. Some people learn a certain way. Sometimes those ways are incompatible. Likewise, some coaches see things that some don't. I don't think it's an accident that baseball people will say that "Don Cooper is one of the best pitching coaches in baseball". I don't think it's an accident when players say that their coach helped them make an adjustment that made them better. It happens. Coaches have influence, and some can see things that others cannot.

[Thrylos]

Anderson deserves as much credit for Hughes and he does for Correia, Nolasco and Burton

 

If you look at Hughes' numbers, you will see that he is pretty much the same pitcher he has been the last 3 seasons with 2 notable differences: He cut both his BB% and HR/FB to a third. I would guess to venture that the first is likely the result of not tinkering with a new pitcher every third week like he did when with the Yankees and maybe feeling more confident getting out of New York. I hope that the second is sustainable, but the league average is 10 and he is around 6. We shall see, but happy that he is finally catching up to his peripherals

[TheLeviathan]

Anderson is part of an organizational weakness that we've seen over the years when it comes to starters without the quality pitches needed to attack the strike zone. I would put much more of the blame on management for the pitchers he has been provided to work with, but overall I don't think he's very effective.

 

Hughes is clearly a guy that takes the lead on his own approach and adjustments. Between that and the fact he's new to the team, I don't see much reason for Anderson to get credit.

 

He's new is precisely why Anderson deserves some credit. Hughes is working with new coaches and has had a complete turnaround in success.

 

Since everything happens behind the scenes, to me, there are really only two approaches to take and maintain intellectual fidelity:

 

1) Always credit/blame the player alone

2) Always credit/blame the coaching for their part

 

Picking and choosing just comes off as deliberately dishonest.

[Brandon]

He has definitely helped Guerrier out. His numbers are way better in a Twins uniform.

 

Corriea has pitched the same here as he did before he came here. so I don't see how Anderson could have an affect on him per se.

 

Hughes does appear to have made adjustments though and that could be from meeting with Anderson. All Hughes did was go back to being aggressive like when he was in the bullpen and is mostly a 2 pitch pitcher with an occasional curve thrown in. That sounds like something the Twins would encourage.

 

Burton's troubles are from a decrease in velocity and nibbling as a result netting more walks.

 

The bullpen as a hole seems to be pitching at or above their talent level. And Deduno has been able to control his fastball a little better netting fewer walks though not fully a 6 inning pitcher though.

 

Gibson seems to be the one we really want to see him work some magic and make him a 200 inning pitcher with a 3.50 ERA.

[Brandon]

Also wanted to point out that our best prospects May and Meyer are likely going to come up with some wildness that the Twins will want worked out if possible. that will be fun to keep an eye on as well.

[Trevor0333]

I've always thought Anderson was a solid pitching coach, some of that has dimmed a little in the last couple years. Still I think he's gotten far too much blame for not being able to turn poor pitchers into good ones. Considering the type of talent the team has given him, for the most part the staff has produced better than the talent available. People always want to point to Liriano but he is again back to & will always be Jekyl & Hyde.

 

I have a feeling Anderson's biggest weakness is not his ability to get the most out of the talent given to him. But not being able to tell the FO that this guy just isn't going to cut it and saying we'll do our best to make him better. Which ends up being not much because they stunk.

[Thrylos]

Considering the type of talent the team has given him, for the most part the staff has produced better than the talent available..

 

He had 2 Cy Young award winners (Santana and Dickie) and 4 guys who finished in the top ten in the Cy Young award in voting voting (Lohse, Liriano, Nathan, Rogers) Santana credits the same guy who Pedro credits for his Cy Youngs (hint: it is not Anderson)

 

And all those 6 got better immediately after they left the Twins (compare their last Twins' season with their first seasons away.) Go figure.

[benji21]

 

And all those 6 got better immediately after they left the Twins (compare their last Twins' season with their first seasons away.) Go figure.

 

I have to agree with you Thrylos and use your comment as a taking-off point. Others on this site in the past have compiled the stats of pitchers coming into the org and leaving the org and having their stats significantly dip and rise respectively, after working with Anderson. Hughes appears to be an exception however. There are surely a myriad of causes for this, but Anderson has to be a large piece of that pie. I really don't like or trust him as a coach. Even if he is or was good, sometimes it's good to shake things up. It's not like we have the Popovich of pitching coaches back there; maybe it's time to give someone else a try.

[diehardtwinsfan]

He had 2 Cy Young award winners (Santana and Dickie) and 4 guys who finished in the top ten in the Cy Young award in voting voting (Lohse, Liriano, Nathan, Rogers) Santana credits the same guy who Pedro credits for his Cy Youngs (hint: it is not Anderson)

 

And all those 6 got better immediately after they left the Twins (compare their last Twins' season with their first season away.) Go figure.

Lohse got better, I won't argue there.

 

You've got some revisionist history going on with the rest. Santana was pretty darn good when he was with the Twins, even won a couple of Cy Youngs. Nathan was as well, and his last year was bad, but that might have had something to do with his TJS. Rogers was good before he came to MN, good the one year he was there, and good when he left. Liriano had good seasons in MN and bad ones. He had one good year in Pittsburg after he left and has turned back into his former self. He's being typical Liriano. You might have something with Dickie, except that he debuted in 2001 and didn't go a season without spending significant time in the minors until 2011. He spent two years with the Mets before he morphed into a really good pitcher. From here it looks like a lot of people couldn't harness his talents.

 

I'm not a fan of Anderson, but I don't see how this is a good example of his failure.

 

Edit: Forgot to add that Lohse, Santana, Liriano, and Dickie also switched to the NL, and Rogers was 38 when he got here.

[Thrylos]

I have to agree with you Thrylos and use your comment as a taking-off point. Others on this site in the past have compiled the stats of pitchers coming into the org and leaving the org and having their stats significantly dip and rise respectively, after working with Anderson.

 

Do you mean something like this?

 

Hughes appears to be an exception however. There are surely a myriad of causes for this, but Anderson has to be a large piece of that pie. I really don't like or trust him as a coach. Even if he is or was good, sometimes it's good to shake things up. It's not like we have the Popovich of pitching coaches back there; maybe it's time to give someone else a try.

 

If you disregard W-L, and ERA, Only 2 Hughes' numbers this season (and their derivatives, like FIP, xFIP, BABIP etc) are significantly different from his last 2 seasons: BB% and HR/FB. Not sure how much Anderson had anything to do with it.

[Thrylos]

Lohse got better, I won't argue there.

 

You've got some revisionist history going on with the rest. Santana was pretty darn good when he was with the Twins, even won a couple of Cy Youngs. Nathan was as well, and his last year was bad, but that might have had something to do with his TJS. Rogers was good before he came to MN, good the one year he was there, and good when he left. Liriano had good seasons in MN and bad ones. He had one good year in Pittsburg after he left and has turned back into his former self. He's being typical Liriano. You might have something with Dickie, except that he debuted in 2001 and didn't go a season without spending significant time in the minors until 2011. He spent two years with the Mets before he morphed into a really good pitcher. From here it looks like a lot of people couldn't harness his talents.

 

I'm not a fan of Anderson, but I don't see how this is a good example of his failure.

 

That list was an answer to the statement that Anderson did not have anyone to work with. And you cannot compare a Nathan on his peak to a 38 year old Nathan, or a Rogers for that point. If you want to see a (3-4 year old now) list of people who got better after they left the Twins and Andy, feel free to look here.

[Beezer07]

That list was an answer to the statement that Anderson did not have anyone to work with. And you cannot compare a Nathan on his peak to a 38 year old Nathan, or a Rogers for that point. If you want to see a (3-4 year old now) list of people who got better after they left the Twins and Andy, feel free to look here.

 

How can you use Dickey as a way to refute the idea that Anderson didn't have anyone to work with? Because he had one decent season and one really good season YEARS after several other teams gave up on him?

[Trevor0333]

He had 2 Cy Young award winners (Santana and Dickie) and 4 guys who finished in the top ten in the Cy Young award in voting voting (Lohse, Liriano, Nathan, Rogers) Santana credits the same guy who Pedro credits for his Cy Youngs (hint: it is not Anderson)

 

And all those 6 got better immediately after they left the Twins (compare their last Twins' season with their first seasons away.) Go figure.

 

Dickey, really. He had 1 unbelievable season and immediately went back to average. Knuckleballers are a different animal. Lohse spent a few years with the best pitching coach & staff in baseball by far after he left here. If we are going to compare what Anderson gets compared to Dave Duncan then we may as well give up, no one is as good as him. Nathan was as good here as he was anywhere else & Rogers was here 1 year when he was 38.

 

Im not going to argue Anderson is a good pitching coach, I think he's solid which is about middle of the road league wide wise. I just think he's been given too many below average pitchers people expected him to make good.

[Trevor0333]

That list was an answer to the statement that Anderson did not have anyone to work with. And you cannot compare a Nathan on his peak to a 38 year old Nathan, or a Rogers for that point. If you want to see a (3-4 year old now) list of people who got better after they left the Twins and Andy, feel free to look here.

 

That list is filled with very mediocre pitchers other than Garza & I don't care who you are as a pitching coach anyone is going to be better after their 22-23 age seasons. That list to me proves nothing & I don't think Anderson is a real good pitching coach. He's a bit above average in my book. That doesnt mean you dont go find someone better but pinning the mediocre pitching squarely on him isn't telling the entire story.

[Paul Pleiss]

I'm not a noted Rick Anderson hater. Phil Hughes emergence this season isn't going to change that. I don't think Rick Anderson is worth the price of the uniform on his back, or the pack of gum in my pocket. He's Gardy's guy, and that's it, and I'm sure that's the only reason he's still around.

 

I can't stay Anderson. I have no good things to say, so I'll say no more.

[The Wise One]

Is Curt Young a better pitching coach than Mickey Callaway? Is Callaway a better pitching coach than Mike Butcher or Jim Hickey? That a pitcher goes somewhere and does better tha he did elsewhere a credit to the coach? So many different factors, age, experience, heath go into a numbers for pitchers.

 

The Twins pitching staff has over time under Anderson has a fip, xfip and SIERRA lower than the team ERA under Anderson. They have a WPA of 28. As a whole then, the Twins staff pitches better than what is expected of their talent. Not by much. So not great, but not bad either.

[Trevor0333]

I'm not a noted Rick Anderson hater. Phil Hughes emergence this season isn't going to change that. I don't think Rick Anderson is worth the price of the uniform on his back, or the pack of gum in my pocket. He's Gardy's guy, and that's it, and I'm sure that's the only reason he's still around.

 

I can't stay Anderson. I have no good things to say, so I'll say no more.

 

I can understand the sentiment but it's like saying Tice was a bad coach. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Considering the resources he was given I don't think you can have a definitive answer.

[drivlikejehu]

Since everything happens behind the scenes, to me, there are really only two approaches to take and maintain intellectual fidelity:

 

1) Always credit/blame the player alone

2) Always credit/blame the coaching for their part

 

Picking and choosing just comes off as deliberately dishonest.

 

That's an arbitrary dichotomy. I cited objective facts that led to my view that Anderson is not likely to be a major factor in Hughes' success. You can agree or disagree, but logically it makes no sense to say the coach "always" needs to be a factor when a player does better or worse.

 

In fact, I think it's clear that both your options are false. We know for sure that coaching can be relevant, so #1 is out. And we know that players can make adjustments on their own, ruling out #2 also. So the only 'honest' way of looking at it is to recognize that each circumstance is different.

[Halsey Hall]

Just curious, but are you willing to expand on your take?

 

I've just never been an Anderson fan, and really had my doubts as to how much he's helped the pitchers. No doubt in his years he's helped some I'm sure, but not a great percentage. And with Hughes, he was so happy to be here in spring training, I just feel he's taken the ball and run with it, and done so all on his own. He's confident, was when he came here, and enjoying being here.

[Craig Arko]

I seem to recall Dick Such wasn't exactly the darling of the fan base or media, either.

 

I'd rate the catcher as being on equal footing with the pitching coach for in-game performance.

[DocBauer]

Ok...here I go.

 

I am not an apologist. Just a realist.

 

I think a manager or coach, maybe more so in baseball than some sports, is treated much like a QB in football. When the team wins, the QB gets the credit. When the team loses, it's the QB's fault. Baseball is a team sport, never forget. But there are also a lot of one-on-one battles that take place. A pitching coach can't make a pitcher throw harder, or have more talent. What can he do? Well, he can increase focus. He can help repetitive motions and mechanics. He can suggest different grips that might prove better. He can move a pitcher to the left or right of the rubber for better results. He can deal with approach and psychology, getting the pitcher to believe in his stuff, trust his defense, change the order of his pitches thrown. He has an impact, but it also depends on the head and arm of the pitcher.

 

Im not going to defend Anderson as the best pitching coach around. And if some of the moves the Twins have made over the past few seasons are a result of Anderson recommendations, (maybe, maybe not, don't know) then he bears as much blame as anyone in the FO for the past 3 seasons. It is very, very easy for critics to find blame and scapegoats where they will. But let's take a little deeper look at the 12+ seasons in regard to Twins pitching with Anderson as pitching coach.

 

1) From his early days, a list of some of the pitchers Anderson has worked with: Radke, Santana, Liriano, Fiore, Guardado, Milton, Rincon, Romero, Trombley, Mays, Balfour, Hawkins, Crain, Guerrier, Nathan, Baker, Silva, Neshak, Perkins, Neshak, Reyes, Blackburn, Slowey, Breslow, Reyes, Pavano, Rauschenberg, Swarzak.

 

A couple of these names are out of baseball now, but enjoyed their best success in a Twins uniform. A couple were injured and rebounded after rehab, and after they left the Twins. A couple had solid seasons after they left, not necessarily better, but left via FA. And those decisions are on Anderson?

 

Santana was nurtured in to a multi Cy Young winner under Anderson's tutelage. Liriano was a top rookie performer before hurting his arm. (Undoubtedly Anderson's fault) Upon his return, he actually pitched very well in streaks. He pitched poorly for the White Sox, and it was reported he frustrated their pitching coach. Last year he rebounded and pitched very well for the NL Pirates. (Also Anderson's fault) And this year he has continued his Jeckyl/Hyde career.

 

RA Dickey and Kyle Lohse? Please! Just as Hughes has found a new and successful home, Dickey left the Twins after ONE season, had 2 solid seasons before his Cy Young season. Lohse spent 5+ so-so seasons in Minnesota before leaving. He spent a poor season in '07 with the Reds and Phillies before a solid '08 season with the Cardinals, a poor season in '09, followed by a couple solid/good seasons. (Amazing how Anderson has the capacity to direct the FO to dump a pitcher who will have success 2 or 3 years after leaving the Twins)

 

2) Pitching to contact. I am soooo tired of this concept. Does anyone understand what this means? Somewhere between now and two years ago, Anderson himself gave an interview about this subject. It has nothing to do with SO's. Anderson even addressed this issue. (I wish I could pull this interview out of the past!) What PTC means is throwing strikes! Trusting in your stuff and the defense behind you.

 

Bull Durham and Crash Davis flashback! LOL

 

Brunansky, (some claim Molitor as well, no objection on my part) gain accolades for the Twins currently working hard on counts and gaining walks to improve the offense and run production. But the Twins NOT waking batters has little relevance?

 

Can we all at least agree that walks tend to kill?

 

3) 2002-2010 with Anderson as pitching coach, the Twins AL ERA rankings were: 6th, 7th, 1st, 5th, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 11th, and 5th.

 

2002-2010 with Anderson as pitching coach, the Twins AL rank for BB were: 6th, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, and 1st.

 

Even with the poor pitching we've endured the past 3 seasons, along with poor play and production overall, the Twins staff has still ranked 6th, 6th and 3rd in walks allowed.

 

Even this season, with a high ERA that has been declining, (high mostly due to Pelfrey and Correia) our BB ranks second in the AL.

 

From 2002 to 2010 the Twins won the division 6 times in 9 years. In 2010, our primary rotation that season included such studs as Baker, Blackburn, Slowey, Liriano and Pavano. Guys like Fox, Manship and Burnett helped out. The pen was anchored by Capps and Rausch, Crain, Perkins, Guerrier, Duensing, and others.

 

We won 94 games that year with that rotation.

 

Yeah, Anderson's 12+ seasons as pitching coach just reek of incompetance.