Sinker: Pirates find Worley's mechanical flaw

[LaBombo]

Fwiw, my guess is that Anderson's failures have outweighed his successes, subjective though that guess may be. That being said, Worley's early success needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

In addition to the small sample size, his opponent babip is nearly 100 points below his career average, and his strand rate has been nearly 15% above his average. Even allowing for the good luck, though, his fip and xfip remain below 4.

 

Too early to call Worley another Anderson whiff, but it's not looking good for RA on this one.

[notoriousgod71]

Fair enough. Good catch that the Twins also tried tweaking his mechanics.

 

But did they tweak them to how they were when he was successful or did they tweak them to add more sink?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Three years of rebuilding, and Epstein has put together a roster with 3 players over 30, and and the 6th youngest in baseball.

 

Three years of rebuilding, and Ryan has put together a roster with 11 players over 30, and the 6th oldest in baseball.

 

The quantity of young players on the MLB roster is clearly a lesser measure of the progress of a rebuilding effort than the quality of the prospects acquired and developed. But it certainly warrants consideration when comparing the two GM's.

 

And the Cubs are consistently ranked just behind the Twins among the top five farm systems in baseball. That was before the injuries to Sano and Buxton, and before Epstein acquired one of the top-ranked shortstop prospects in the minors, along with the OF the A's took in the first round last year, and a 25 year old starter with 190 K's in 230 MLB innings.

 

Both teams are bad. Both teams have a top three farm system. Both Epstein and Ryan took the job at roughly the same time. Beyond that, it's picking nits. If the Cubs are better much quicker than the Twins, then you have an argument to hang your hat on. Until that happens, the two teams are roughly neck-and-neck.

 

My point is that people expect everything to change overnight and the rebuild process to start instantaneously. That doesn't happen. It doesn't happen with Ryan's teams, it doesn't happen with Beane's teams, it doesn't happen with Epstein's teams.

 

Teams cannot be built from the ground up in two seasons. It just doesn't happen. Like many others, I'd like to see a few younger players on the Twins right now but I can't fault Ryan for injuries to the likes of Sano or Buxton or the recent falterings of Meyer. This roster would look vastly different if Sano was manning third and Meyer was taking the hill alongside Gibson and Hughes every fifth day.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

It's worse than that -- Worley was already off the 40-man roster, having cleared waivers and been outrighted to AAA. As jorgen mentioned upthread, when the Twins sold him, the debate was more like Worley vs. Virgil Vasquez.

I think this proves K.W.A.M.'s point. As little respect as I have for the FO, they give up on no asset that might have a smidgen of trade value. Worley wasn't on the 40, they received a little cash for him and no talent. I'm sure the cash was small consolation.

[stringer bell]

Nothing, he was outright released. A's picked him up for nothing.

Close. Breslow was claimed when DFAed. The Twins were trying to outright him to Rochester.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Numerous under 30 players have had a chance to work out They did not. You grab what you can find. That would be older players. There is no intent to build with them, only to field as competitive team as possible for this year.

if you are committed to rebuilding, you give the young guys a chance despite failure. If you don't intend for a player to last longer than one season, you don't have your undivided attention on the ultimate prize. The TR quote "why not us, why not now" speaks volumes about where TR thinks this team is going, and that appears to be down the same path they have been going over the last three terrible seasons.

 

What does age tell you about the team? It tells you how committed to the future they are.

[Bsharpp]

The Twins believed in Nolasco instead. And, let's see... his ERA is up to 5.90 now. Once again we find the Twins' flaw. They are making huge mistakes when evaluating talent. They could have kept Worley at AAA but kept Diamond instead. And, they are stuck with Nolasco for what? 3 more years of getting pounded? Not to mention a $23 million dollar first baseman who's skills have diminished. Did they really think he was going to catch until he was 35?

[goulik]

IMHO the manager and pitching coach are on a shorter leash than ever before. The coaching staff was all reshuffled last year with Gardenhire saying if Anderson is gone he is gone. (Am I the only one that remembers that? I do not have a source to back me... Yet)

Molitor was added to the staff. I would not be surprised to see Anderson "shuffled" after the all star break. I do not think the FO wants to do anything with the impending all star break at Target Field and Gardy one of the coaches but there may be a dust up after the All Star Game with trades and possibly coaching changes

[LaBombo]

 

My point is that people expect everything to change overnight and the rebuild process to start instantaneously. That doesn't happen. It doesn't happen with Ryan's teams, it doesn't happen with Beane's teams, it doesn't happen with Epstein's teams.

 

Teams cannot be built from the ground up in two seasons. It just doesn't happen. Like many others, I'd like to see a few younger players on the Twins right now but I can't fault Ryan for injuries to the likes of Sano or Buxton or the recent falterings of Meyer. This roster would look vastly different if Sano was manning third and Meyer was taking the hill alongside Gibson and Hughes every fifth day.

 

With all due respect, what are you talking about, BroBeau? Straw. Man.

[Physics Guy]

Well, it sounds as though the flaw in Nolasco's delivery may have been injury. Anderson may get a pass on this one. It sounds as though Nolasco may have been concealing it also.

[mnsports255]

Whatever the deal is, we better have a more than competent coaching staff (especially pitching coach) in here by next season. With Myers, May, and Berrios close to the big leagues and Stewart a little behind, the Twins better have a good pitching coach. They can NOT screw up with those 4 guys.

[AlwaysinModeration]

It certainly is on the staff to evaluate talent. The Twins staff felt that the 26 year old Worley had less upside than a 32 year old Virgil Vasquez. That decision is on the shoulders of the staff and should have been greatly influenced by Anderson.

 

Excellent point. This is one of numerous roster choices the Twins have made that seem misguided to me, and that is part of the FO, but also part on the coaches.

[old nurse]

Many of the over 30 guys haven't either. What is meaningful about the age of the roster is that it gives an indication of how many players on the roster are part of the future which can give an idea of how close the future might be.

 

Not always, but it's meaningful. Many young guys have not contributed. The roster average age of 30, boosted by a bunch of old guys not part of the future, has done nothing but lose 90 games for several seasons and likely another. Why be old and not very good if you're looking to the future? That's not meaningless.

 

From the team that started the season in 2011 there is Perkins, Ploufe, Duensing and Mauer. Do I need to go through players who would be under 30 that had a chance to prove themselves but did not over the last 3 1/2 seasons? From the opening day roster in 2011 to now there is nearly a complte roster turnover. There really isn't a bunch of guys that lost games together over several seasons. In all of the roster turnover since the start of 2011, how many players caught on somewhere else and improved? The old guy Cuddyer. Maybe Worley,, a few others, but not many.

Nearer to the end of the season one will have a clearer picture of how mediocre to bad the Twins are. As you bring up the 90 loss mark, to determine if the Twins will get there remember their current record is 17-14 against division opponents. There are plenty of games there to improve a record

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

First, was he ever really demoted to the bullpen? I know that was a likely destination this year, but he never made a relief appearance with the Twins or at Rochester.

 

Second, why would a trade for nothing motivate him more than clearing waivers for nothing? That was the weird part for the Twins -- they had the guy off the 40-man but under their cheap control for the full 2014 season (and beyond if they wanted to add him back to the roster)... and they chose to sell him? It would be like if they sold Parmelee this spring after he cleared waivers -- while the player in question is unlikely to be a star, there's just no real point in such a move for the 2014 Twins.

 

sorry- he had a relief appearance in Spring Training this year (which I realize, starters don't always start in spring training games) , and that combined with some of the articles I re-read made me think they had demoted him to the bullpen before he was sent to AAA this spring.

[Brock Beauchamp]

With all due respect, what are you talking about, BroBeau? Straw. Man.

 

It's not a straw man when you jump into a conversation I was having with someone else who was complaining about timelines. I can't straw man your argument if the initial comment wasn't directed toward you.

[TheLeviathan]

Do I need to go through players who would be under 30 that had a chance to prove themselves but did not over the last 3 1/2 seasons?

 

You keep shifting the argument. You said roster age is "meaningless". It's not meaningless - it's generally an indicator of how well your drafting and development is going and if those kids are making your team.

 

If you want to say they're still old because their young players are bad, well that's still an indictment. I'd argue they have deliberately put old players on this team for appearances - but they couldn't even bring in old players that are all that good. Also an indictment.

 

And here's the most meaningful part - when this team turns the corner (and it will eventually, be it 2 years or 12) - the roster age WILL drop with the infusion of the young wave that carries the team forward. That's when we'll know. Right now that old roster age indicates we have a long way to go yet.

[Willihammer]

Worley's still only sporting a 4.9% SwStr% which if he qualified would put him 2nd to last in baseball (ahead of Correia). He is getting luckier, but he still doesn't have very good stuff.

[tobi0040]

Worley's still only sporting a 4.9% SwStr% which if he qualified would put him 2nd to last in baseball (ahead of Correia). He is getting luckier, but he still doesn't have very good stuff.

 

Exactly. He is likely still throwing that 88-89 mph heater and guys are still hitting it hard, just at people. This won't last. He jumped the gun on trash talking, IMO.

[Steven Buhr]

Just for the record, it wasn't Anderson's peer with the Pirates that noticed this supposed pitching flaw of Worley's, but Jeff Benedict, whose formal title is, I believe, "special assistant to the GM" with the Pirates. Sort of a roving pitching instructor. He was interviewed for, but did not get, the Phillies' pitching coach gig in the off-season.

 

So, really, this is Terry Ryan's fault, for not hiring a "special assistant to the GM" to fix pitchers.

 

On the other hand, if Anderson is indeed sent packing after the season, it appears that there's a genius in Pittsburgh looking for a pitching coach job.

[twinsnorth49]

Not a Rick Anderson fan, although it's ridiculous what a whipping boy he is for some around here. I have doubts that Worley's recent success is sustainable, his biggest mechanical flaw is that he's just not all that good.

[twinsnorth49]

The Twins believed in Nolasco instead. And, let's see... his ERA is up to 5.90 now. Once again we find the Twins' flaw. They are making huge mistakes when evaluating talent. They could have kept Worley at AAA but kept Diamond instead. And, they are stuck with Nolasco for what? 3 more years of getting pounded? Not to mention a $23 million dollar first baseman who's skills have diminished. Did they really think he was going to catch until he was 35?

 

For the record Diamond passed through waivers so ultimately choices had to be made on both.

 

What would you have proposed they do with Mauer?

[old nurse]

You keep shifting the argument. You said roster age is "meaningless". It's not meaningless - it's generally an indicator of how well your drafting and development is going and if those kids are making your team.

 

If you want to say they're still old because their young players are bad, well that's still an indictment. I'd argue they have deliberately put old players on this team for appearances - but they couldn't even bring in old players that are all that good. Also an indictment.

 

And here's the most meaningful part - when this team turns the corner (and it will eventually, be it 2 years or 12) - the roster age WILL drop with the infusion of the young wave that carries the team forward. That's when we'll know. Right now that old roster age indicates we have a long way to go yet.

 

Say all the prospects pan out. Between Berrios, Gonslaves, May, Meyer, Stewart and Thorpe you have 4 pitchers that stay healthy throughout their career. From all of the power arms you drafted you find 3 relievers. Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Vargas, Sanatana, Polanco reach their full potential. You now have Atlanta's pitching staff from the 90's and murder's row. Flush with cash from the 3 million plus fans from the regular season and the revenue gouged from deep playoff runs to go with an absurd TV contract you keep the band together as they play well into their 30's. Your average age increases to once again over 29. You don't care at the moment. You are winning. Age is meaningless. Winning is what is meaningful. If you win you don't care the age the player as long as you are winning. My argument has not shifted. You do what you do to win now.

[TheLeviathan]

You don't care at the moment. You are winning.

 

This is HIGHLY frustrating. You have shifted the argument so many times you forgot what you responded to in the first place. The point is that they are NOT winning and they are not young. When the Twins turn over a prospect group that turns the franchise around the team's age WILL drop. So it's meaningful because it's the first true indication (couple with winning more) that things are going right.

 

My frustration (along with many others) is that we're both old AND not winning. So we're adding players at higher cost and lower upside to have bad results. Until the roster's age starts dropping, we can't expect to win with aging retreads. The team's turnaround will come with a substantial drop in the team's average age.

 

So until that drop starts happening - the end of the rainbow is still a ways off.

[twinsnorth49]

Say all the prospects pan out. Between Berrios, Gonslaves, May, Meyer, Stewart and Thorpe you have 4 pitchers that stay healthy throughout their career. From all of the power arms you drafted you find 3 relievers. Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Vargas, Sanatana, Polanco reach their full potential. You now have Atlanta's pitching staff from the 90's and murder's row. Flush with cash from the 3 million plus fans from the regular season and the revenue gouged from deep playoff runs to go with an absurd TV contract you keep the band together as they play well into their 30's. Your average age increases to once again over 29. You don't care at the moment. You are winning. Age is meaningless. Winning is what is meaningful. If you win you don't care the age the player as long as you are winning. My argument has not shifted. You do what you do to win now.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa, there is a big difference between those prospects panning out and competing into their 30's and the 30 somethings they have now. You seem to be deliberately missing the over 30 crowd we have now are awful.

 

If you're going to struggle and decide not to try and spend your way out of it, you might as well do it with something that could pay dividends in the future.

[oldguy10]

Isn't it foolhardy to not do what twinsnorth49 states? I sure think so and I would think most posters here will be in agreement. What other MLB team is constantly signing old players and hoping for the best? I can think of absolutely NONE!

[old nurse]

This is HIGHLY frustrating. You have shifted the argument so many times you forgot what you responded to in the first place. The point is that they are NOT winning and they are not young. When the Twins turn over a prospect group that turns the franchise around the team's age WILL drop. So it's meaningful because it's the first true indication (couple with winning more) that things are going right.

 

My frustration (along with many others) is that we're both old AND not winning. So we're adding players at higher cost and lower upside to have bad results. Until the roster's age starts dropping, we can't expect to win with aging retreads. The team's turnaround will come with a substantial drop in the team's average age.

 

So until that drop starts happening - the end of the rainbow is still a ways off.

 

The Twins had to add players to compete. You complain they are old and have no upside. Take off the over 30 players the Twins signed over the winter or did not trade and replace them with AAA and AA players the Twins have in their system and what would you have? Likely a 100 loss team and the same people complaining about how old and losing the Twins are now just complaining on how poor of team the Twins are. Most of the same players that would be playing in place of the old players are not part of the Twin's future either.

[old nurse]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, there is a big difference between those prospects panning out and competing into their 30's and the 30 somethings they have now. You seem to be deliberately missing the over 30 crowd we have now is awful.

 

If you're going to struggle and decide not to try and spend your way out of it, you might as well do it with something that could pay dividends in the future.

 

No. Awful is awful regardless of age. Good is good regardless of age. That has been my whole point all along.

[TheLeviathan]

Take off the over 30 players the Twins signed over the winter or did not trade and replace them with AAA and AA players the Twins have in their system and what would you have?

 

Honestly? 90 losses and a 100 is a moot difference. And they wouldn't have had to play their AA players, they could've gambled on a bunch of DFA, non-tendered, AAAA players who all would've likely failed, but at least they would've been young with hope.

 

Old retreads taht lead you to 90 or 100 losses? That sucks and it doesn't even allow for hope.

[LaBombo]

No. Awful is awful regardless of age. Good is good regardless of age. That has been my whole point all along.

That's true if your interest in the Twins' future is limited to next week or next month, as opposed to next year and beyond. Otherwise, it is not true.

[ashbury]

That's true if your interest in the Twins' future is limited to next week or next month, as opposed to next year and beyond. Otherwise, it is not true.

 

That's why the placeholders are needed until the true talent is ready. People are getting hung up on the ages of the placeholders. You could've artificially dropped the age of the major league roster for 2014 by stocking up on guys who didn't make it out of single-A and are now trying out for the Saints, but it wouldn't accelerate the actual rebuild, because guys with high upside aren't available for the asking. Average age of the present roster may not be meaningless, but it's the wrong metric.