Article: Chasing An Ace

[Vanimal46]

Extra years of rebuilding are the cost of leaving your youth in the minors to marinate to a level past what others might. After 4 yrs of 90+ losses, most teams would have started the rebuild in earnest in Nov of 2014. Are we in rebuild mode? I would like to think so. But does the FO? Either way, the question of whether they should sign a $?00,000,000 ace to a ? Yr contract is a moot point. It ain't ever gonna happen.

Agreed on your last point that the Price, Cueto, Zimmerman, pick your poison FA Ace option will never happen. Since the organization has a limited history of making their own ace as well, trading for one may be the best method.

 

Before I talk about my point, since you feel the Twins are in rebuild mode, do you think they're going to be a playoff team next season? Or win fewer than 83 games?

 

I may be skeptical but I'm not sure how the Twins can take the next step to being a 90+ win playoff team without taking a risk and acquiring someone better than the other 8 options on hand. It's going to be difficult to replicate the luck and timely hitting we saw last season...

[bird]

 

And Price is one of many "aces" you'll find out there with horrific post-season success.  

 

People seem to forget we had one of the best pitchers in baseball for much of our last run and it guaranteed nothing.  I'd rather have one than not, but I'm not going to fall over myself in FA to get one if my dollar could go farther on, say, Chris Davis or Matt Wieters.

 

 

Yeah, I'm more in this camp. I've been hearing forever how the Verlander's and Sales's are necessary to get you to the postseason, and how the Price's and Arietta's are necessary to advance in the postseason. Signing a FA ace is easy, but so is chopping your hand off with a hatchet. Having TR pay for an ace is admittedly much smarter, but still.

 

I'd be fine with having 4 starters that match up competitively against the opponents' #2,3,and 4 guys. The problem for me is that I'm not confident we have 4 guys under contract will do this for us, except for if they're performing at their peaks for a full season.

 

But I'd avoid the costs and risks. I strongly disagree that money not spend on a long fat contract for an ace will be money never spent elsewhere. If this core group truly comes together, there'll be plenty of opportunities to spend money to keep them. And I'd rather part with assets for things we need, like a catcher, and roll the dice that one or more of Hughes, Gibson, Santana and maybe even Berrios give us solid #2 starter seasons, and that May, Duffey and ?? turn into mid-rotation starters.

 

Jim Kaat was a #2 who gave us a couple #1 seasons. So was Mudcat Grant. And Jim Perry. And Dave Boswell. But not Cole DeVries. Not him.

[Eris]

 

Is there really a correlation between pitcher height and effectiveness? I ask because it always seems to come up when projecting Berrios.
 

 

There are several decent articles that try to address this.  The short answer is that there does not appear to be a correlation between height and various parameters associated with pitching effectiveness or durability.  The first article written by Glenn P. Greenberg indicates there is a positive correlation between

**The taller he is, the higher the round he would be drafted

** The taller he is, the more likely he would become an established major league starting pitcher

 

http://sabr.org/research/does-pitcher-s-height-matter

 

He also mentions that the rule doesn't seem to apply to LH pitchers, presumable because of the scarcity of LH pitchers

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/offseason-notes-a-graph-of-pitcher-height-vs-gb/

[diehardtwinsfan]

Generally agree with Nick's conclusion.  If buying one is the answer, which I'm not against, someone needs to ship Nolasco out of town to go with Milone and quite possibly Gibson.  You cannot give Nolasco away right now, and I have to think that Gibson and Milone are already going to be dangled this offseason. 

 

I think the odds of one of Santana or Hughes pitching like one in 2016 is pretty good.  I also think the odds of May or Berrios becoming one at some point in the next couple years is good enough that you don't leave them out of the picture or ship them off for a marginal upgrade. 

[Shane Wahl]

Are we really sure that Sonny Gray is even *that* good? Berrios could be better than Gray by 2017. Or at least quite comparable. And he's, what, 4.5 years younger? 

 

Look, the money is tied up in Hughes and Santana. You have to see if they can revert to previous form. Then there will be Gibson, May, Duffey, and Berrios. Any pecking order of starters that doesn't go like this seems wrong.

All sorts of pitching matchups happen in the playoffs. Kershaw and Price have had some real issues in the playoffs. The key has to be to get there first.

*Use. The. Young. Talent. You. Already. Have. And. Keep. Your. Future. Intact

* - something does have to happen at the catching spot (but this is about pitching)

[Mike Sixel]

I don't think anyone ever said having an Ace was sufficient to winning, it takes more than 1 player. Nor did anyone say it was a guarantee of post season success. I think, though I may be wrong, that people think it would help the odds.

 

I'd rather hope against all evidence the Twins can draft and develop great pitchers, but there seems to be decades of evidence they can't. Hope isn't really a very effective strategy. I don't know the best, most right, even better answer......but keeping doing what they did for the first 40 years of their existence wasn't working all that well. Maybe things changed for the better a few years ago, we'll find out over the next 4-5 or so.

[Mike Sixel]

Kohl Stewart could be better than Gray, Berrios could, heck, Hu could......the question is, what are the odds any of them are that effective compared to his odds of remaining that effective.

[tobi0040]

 

Kohl Stewart could be better than Gray, Berrios could, heck, Hu could......the question is, what are the odds any of them are that effective compared to his odds of remaining that effective.

 

Here I thought Mike Sixel was someone new.  I just saw the number of posts and put two and two together. 

 

A quick google of Mike Sixel found this guy.  I don't think this is you.  But if it is, I am sorry about every disagreement we have ever had.  You were always right and I was always wrong.  I will never disagree with you again.

 

http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Mike-Sixel-49473

[joshuahack]

What about Nolasco and Kepler for Shields and Hedges? Padres save $39mil and get a top 50 prospect, Twins get out of Nolasco, get a front of the rotation guy who can miss some bats, and get a catching prospect who could be the offensive upgrade they need.

[twinssouth]

I see no reason for a Gray trade. The Twins have 2 high upside pitchers waiting in the wings. Don't write off Meyer. This guy when on, is something special. I've had the good fortune to see Meyer and Berrios pitch. Berrios is good but Meyer is dominant when on. Hopefully, an off season to clear his mind and build up some endurance to get to the 6/7th innings will get him back on track. The Twins FO though need to cut him some slack re the walk bs.

[tobi0040]

 

What about Nolasco and Kepler for Shields and Hedges? Padres save $39mil and get a top 50 prospect, Twins get out of Nolasco, get a front of the rotation guy who can miss some bats, and get a catching prospect who could be the offensive upgrade they need.

 

Nolasco has no trade value.  So you are asking them to give up Shields and Hedges for Kepler.  Just not happening.  We are stuck with Ricky. 

[Mike Sixel]

Here I thought Mike Sixel was someone new.  I just saw the number of posts and put two and two together. 

 

A quick google of Mike Sixel found this guy.  I don't think this is you.  But if it is, I am sorry about every disagreement we have ever had.  You were always right and I was always wrong.  I will never disagree with you again.

 

http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Mike-Sixel-49473

It was funny the first time I saw that someone with the same name as me was an MMA fighter. We must be related somehow......but no, that is definitely not me.

[markos]

 

56 (72%) were 6'2 or taller.

22 (28%) were less than 6'2

 

20% of the top 10 were "short".

 

Seems like just about the right mix of tall and short finished in the top 10 based on the total population.

The "total population" I was referring to was the population of all baseball players worldwide, not just the much, much, much smaller group of MLB pitchers who qualify for the ERA title. Only 5% of the men in the world are at least 6' 2", yet they make up the vast majority of MLB pitchers. 

[tobi0040]

 

It was funny the first time I saw that someone with the same name as me was an MMA fighter. We must be related somehow......but no, that is definitely not me.

 

The only other Noah Tobin I know is a theatre guy in Boston.  Nobody is scared of either of us.

[joshuahack]

 

Nolasco has no trade value.  So you are asking them to give up Shields and Hedges for Kepler.  Just not happening.  We are stuck with Ricky. 

There is value in saving $39 million on Shields if they want out of his contract. Similar to the Tulo-Reyes deal, take on a bad contract to get rid of a worse contract. Not saying it would work, just saying it's an idea.

[tobi0040]

 

There is value in saving $39 million on Shields if they want out of his contract. Similar to the Tulo-Reyes deal, take on a bad contract to get rid of a worse contract. Not saying it would work, just saying it's an idea.

 

But you are talking about a guy that has gone five years in a row with a sub 4.00 ERA.   I get he is aging and declining.  But he is not really a guy you pay to go away. He is under contract but he will be one of their five best starters without question.  

 

 

Edited October 22, 2015 by tobi0040

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't think anyone ever said having an Ace was sufficient to winning, it takes more than 1 player. Nor did anyone say it was a guarantee of post season success. I think, though I may be wrong, that people think it would help the odds.

 

It helps the odds to add better players, that's for sure.  The problem is that people believe that having an ace is a prerequisite for even being considered a contender.   The Twins need a better 25 man roster and there are many ways to skin that cat.

 

Personally, right now, I don't think all in on an ace is the way to go.  Ride the excellent fielding outfield, pay up for Chris Davis, and find a way to upgrade the catching spot.  Let the kids play.

[tobi0040]

 

It helps the odds to add better players, that's for sure.  The problem is that people believe that having an ace is a prerequisite for even being considered a contender.   The Twins need a better 25 man roster and there are many ways to skin that cat.

 

Personally, right now, I don't think all in on an ace is the way to go.  Ride the excellent fielding outfield, pay up for Chris Davis, and find a way to upgrade the catching spot.  Let the kids play.

 

Chris Davis at DH and a league average catcher has to be worth 30+ runs over what we had last year

[TheLeviathan]

 

Chris Davis at DH and a league average catcher has to be worth 30+ runs over what we had last year

 

I look at this: Hicks-Mauer-Dozier-Davis-Sano-Rosario-Catcher-Escobar-Buxton and see a lot of upside in that lineup.  Very solid defensively, good power, good speed, good balance and it manages to have some serious upside too.

 

That, to me, is where to invest the money.  And we have plenty of money to do it.

[kab21]

 

All that matters is that you get good performances. Who that comes from varies wildly. Just ask David Price. Or San Fran's other big hero: Ryan Vogelsong.

It's a cute phrasing, but all you have to do is go look at actual box scores to see it isn't that simple.

Actually it doesn't vary widely unless you are only looking at single game performances which have about as much statistical relevance as clutch hitting. 

 

If you looked at aces as a whole in the postseason then they would have significantly outperformed the #3/4 types by a similar margin as they outperformed them in the regular season. 

 

 

[Willihammer]

I agree with the principle that the Twins need to take the biggest upgrades they can find without bias to making the team look a certain way. If that return isn't in the rotation, so be it. The Royals are showing for the 2nd year in a row that you can go pretty far with a bunch of aging, FA 3s and 4s in your rotation. Still, it will be interesting to see how they do against the young aces in the Met rotation.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Willihammer

[TheLeviathan]

 

Actually it doesn't vary widely unless you are only looking at single game performances which have about as much statistical relevance as clutch hitting. 

 

If you looked at aces as a whole in the postseason then they would have significantly outperformed the #3/4 types by a similar margin as they outperformed them in the regular season. 

 

Oh?  You have some evidence of that?

 

I see plenty of variation.  There are plenty of aces that struggle and lots of the Ryan Vogelsongs of the world.  If you have some sort of mass study on it I'd love to see it.  Otherwise it's easy to see just from pulling up this playoff year (and it's true for most you look at) that being the "ace" of your staff doesn't mean you won't be outperformed badly by dudes like Marco Estrada.  Every postseason is littered with dud performances by aces and surprising #3 guys that carry their team.

 

And it shouldn't be a surprise.  The playoffs are just a grandiose small sample themselves.

Edited October 22, 2015 by TheLeviathan

[Mike Sixel]

the playoffs are about entertainment even more than the season is, they aren't about determining the "best" team at all.

[Don Walcott]

I think the whole debate about whether an Ace does this in the regular season or an Ace does that in the post-season for your team is irrelevant to whether the Twins should sign one of the four clear #1 quality starters on the market this off-season.  The Twins have a chance of improving on a great season.  The Twins have the money to spend.  One of Zimmermann, Price, Cueto or Greinke could provide the Twins with 200+ innings of sub-3 ERA.  Add that to Santana, Gibson, Duffey and Berrios, and possibly Hughes (if he's back to 2014 form), and we will significantly improve the team's runs against.  Top starters who eat innings also give the bullpen a rest, and that helps make the bullpen more effective.

 

This looks like the best opportunity, this off-season, to sign one of these guys.  If the Twins regress, and we want to get them off the books, there will always be buyers in New York, LA, etc.  Regardless, the Twins have money, will make more money by signing one of these guys, and this really could take us to the next level.

 

Even if Berrios could be an Ace, or Hughes or Santana could pitch that well (despite their histories of not being at that level), that shouldn't deter the Twins from improving the pitching staff with a proven #1 guy.  In fact, getting that guy could make the other starters better.

 

Like some other posters here, I'd love to see them get Zimmermann.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The Royals are showing for the 2nd year in a row that you can go pretty far with a bunch of aging, FA 3s and 4s in your rotation

Shields wasn't a 3 or 4.  Ventura didn't pitch like one last year either.  Both of those guys had a better ERA+ than any Twins starter since Baker's partial season in 2011, or before that, Johan.

 

And Cueto, despite his mixed results for KC, definitely wasn't acquired to be a 3 or 4 either.

[scottz]

 

The "total population" I was referring to was the population of all baseball players worldwide, not just the much, much, much smaller group of MLB pitchers who qualify for the ERA title. Only 5% of the men in the world are at least 6' 2", yet they make up the vast majority of MLB pitchers. 

I don't think it's good science to compare the height of the total world population's men to MLB players. Professional athletes are different than the general population of the world. If you're going to make a height argument about baseball players (specifically in this case, pitchers), you need to look only at the sub-population of baseball players when determining if height matters among baseball players.

 

Regardless, we're not doing full-blown scientific analysis here. It's just a discussion. The stats you threw out do not indicate that pitchers shorter than 6'2" are significantly under-represented in the results of ERA+ compared to the total population of pitchers who qualified (in this one year sample data).

[diehardtwinsfan]

I just need to say this and it needs to be said more and more and more:  SHIELDS IS NOT AN ACE ANYMORE.  He's 33 and saw an increase in ERA, WHIP, B/9, and HR/9 in a pitchers haven of all places.  I know he gets Ks, and I'm open to picking him up for the right price assuming guys like May and Duffey still get to pitch, but in no way should we be giving up a ton of value for him.  He's 1 year into a 4 year deal that is going to be about as untradable as Nolasco is now, and he's got about as much of a chance of pitching like an ace as Nolasco does going forward.  Pass please. 

[Craig Arko]

Why is everybody shouting in these threads lately? Makes an old man's eyes hurt.

[markos]

 

I don't think it's good science to compare the height of the total world population's men to MLB players. Professional athletes are different than the general population of the world. If you're going to make a height argument about baseball players (specifically in this case, pitchers), you need to look only at the sub-population of baseball players when determining if height matters among baseball players.

 

Regardless, we're not doing full-blown scientific analysis here. It's just a discussion. The stats you threw out do not indicate that pitchers shorter than 6'2" are significantly under-represented in the results of ERA+ compared to the total population of pitchers who qualified (in this one year sample data).

I threw out the general population stat to indicate that at some level height matters. If the vast majority of people are under 6'2", but the vast majority of elite MLB pitchers are over, then height provides at least a very crude tool to differentiate players. The question is where is it useful and where is it not. I agree that there does not appear to be a height bias at the MLB level. But does it exist in the with prospects? Or drafting? Or with signing 16-year-old international kids? Hopefully this example will demonstrate what I mean (and oh my god this is so far off topic...)

 

"Short" defined as 6'1" or less, and all numbers made up...

(X% - Y to be read as "X% of Y are 'short'")
Scenario 1:
95% - the general population
80% - all baseball pitchers
50% - pitchers for competitive hs traveling teams, college, etc
25% - pitchers good enough to be drafted/signed
25% - pitchers who reach AA
25% - pitchers who make the majors
25% - pitchers who qualify for the ERA title
20% - pitchers in the top 10 in league ERA

 

In this scenario, height is clearly not a good indicator for any player acquisition. If a pitcher is good enough to be drafted/signed, beyond that height doesn't really matter at all.

 

Scenario 2:
95% - the general population
80% - all baseball pitchers
50% - pitchers for competitive hs traveling teams, college, etc
40% - pitchers good enough to be drafted
35% - pitchers who reach AA
30% - pitchers who make the majors
25% - pitchers who qualify for the ERA title
20% - pitchers in the top 10 in league ERA

 

Here, height does matter, as at every step the population of pitchers gets progressively taller. This scenario would indicate to me that height does matter to some degree, at least in the fact that it correlates with success.

 

I don't have any data to know what the actual numbers are. But my theory is that at a certain age/level (maybe 22/AA), height stops being meaningful. But prior to that it is meaningful, primarily because it is a proxy for identifying which young pitchers will develop the stuff necessary to succeed in the majors. Obviously height isn't the only thing that matters, or even one of the main things. But when dealing with draft/signing/trade decisions, when all other things (stuff/results/health/etc) are equal I would go with the tall pitcher over the short pitcher.

[tobi0040]

 

I just need to say this and it needs to be said more and more and more:  SHIELDS IS NOT AN ACE ANYMORE.  He's 33 and saw an increase in ERA, WHIP, B/9, and HR/9 in a pitchers haven of all places.  I know he gets Ks, and I'm open to picking him up for the right price assuming guys like May and Duffey still get to pitch, but in no way should we be giving up a ton of value for him.  He's 1 year into a 4 year deal that is going to be about as untradable as Nolasco is now, and he's got about as much of a chance of pitching like an ace as Nolasco does going forward.  Pass please. 

 

The only hypothetical trades I have seen involve Nolasco. Which aren't happening from the Padres perspective.   Hedges could be a good prospect, so the Kepler piece comes close to cancelling out Kepler.

Edited October 22, 2015 by tobi0040