Article: Position Battle: The Bullpen

[Danchat]

I think Ryan Pressly can be a solid part of the back-end of the bullpen. He should definitely make the team unless the last injury affects his pitching.

 

I also think O'Rourke is underrated. He's scary good when used correctly as a LOOGY. However, the Twins/Molly don't appear to want to use him in that role - he faced waaaay too many right-handers last season.

[Seth Stohs]

 

TR mentioned Rogers in his convo with Atteberry on GO last week. I'm ~75% sure it was in reference to the LH relief situation. Did anyone else hear that?

 

He's said that several times, so I'm sure he did.

 

I've been told by a few people that Rogers went to the AFL and the intent was for him to work out of the bullpen. That didn't happen. Not sure why, other than the Twins already sent three other relievers (Burdi, Reed, Hildenberger). 

[Seth Stohs]

 

I think Ryan Pressly can be a solid part of the back-end of the bullpen. He should definitely make the team unless the last injury affects his pitching.

 

I also think O'Rourke is underrated. He's scary good when used correctly as a LOOGY. However, the Twins/Molly don't appear to want to use him in that role - he faced waaaay too many right-handers last season.

 

Regarding O'Rourke, when he was brought up, he was used pretty much only against lefties, except in blowouts, and he pitched really well against them. Once they acquired Cotts as the 2nd lefty, O'Rourke was used sparingly, and just in blowouts, and he really struggled because he was facing mostly right-handers. They would just give him the ninth. So, I don't think looking at his overall numbers is too important. (at least in determining if he can be a LOOGY)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Regarding O'Rourke, when he was brought up, he was used pretty much only against lefties, except in blowouts, and he pitched really well against them. Once they acquired Cotts as the 2nd lefty, O'Rourke was used sparingly, and just in blowouts, and he really struggled because he was facing mostly right-handers. They would just give him the ninth. So, I don't think looking at his overall numbers is too important. (at least in determining if he can be a LOOGY)

I'm not sure if this is quite true, Seth.  O'Rourke faced 3 RHB in his debut, was notably allowed to face a couple RHB in a game he helped blow against the Yankees, etc., all before the Cotts acquisition.

 

And we're not looking at his numbers judging his performance, but rather judging if they will trust him and how they would use them.

 

EDIT: Just peeked at his game log, and he did face a larger share of RHB after Cott's acquisition.  But even before Cotts, only 61% of his batters faced were LHB, well short of LOOGY standards like Randy Choate (80%). And after Cotts, he barely pitched at all -- 8 appearances, 6 IP between the Cott's acquisition and when we were eliminated from the postseason (~40 team games).

 

And the fact that we acquired Cotts, even after O'Rourke showed promise as a LOOGY, suggests perhaps we don't like a strict LOOGY in our pen and we may not trust O'Rourke.

Edited February 12, 2016 by spycake

[Willihammer]

O'Rourke presents the same problem Duensing did. Sure he's good against lefties but he's gonna have to face righties, and he can't get them out. Neither can Rogers actually, at least not as a AAA starter (.830 OPS against). There just isn't enough roster space for a true LOOGY.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Willihammer

[GSM]

Ryan, for whatever reason, basically did nothing to improve on the bullpen and went his tradition dumpster diving to piece together a junk bullpen. 

 

Burdi and the younger arms aren't ready yet.  They have yet to prove anything in the minors and some want them up w/ the big club? 

 

 

[GSM]

 

O'Rourke presents the same problem Duensing did. Sure he's good against lefties but he's gonna have to face righties, and he can't get them out. Neither can Rogers actually, at least not as a AAA starter (.830 OPS against). There just isn't enough roster space for a true LOOGY.

 

Deunsing wasn't even good against lefties.  O'Rourke isn't all that impressive either. 

 

He's junk.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

O'Rourke presents the same problem Duensing did. Sure he's good against lefties but he's gonna have to face righties, and he can't get them out. Neither can Rogers actually, at least not as a AAA starter (.830 OPS against). There just isn't enough roster space for a true LOOGY.

The Cardinals have had no problem rostering Randy Choate the last 3 seasons, etc.  With a 7 man bullpen standard, that will probably swell to 8 at times, and I see no reason why there wouldn't be room for a LOOGY.

 

Other teams have similar sized bullpens too, so everybody has a short bench and can't pinch hit so easily.

 

Seems like an easy way for a suspect bullpen to improve, to smartly deploy a strict LOOGY.

Edited February 12, 2016 by spycake

[nicksaviking]

Pressly should be more of a lock than Fien, and I'm concerned that the team is going to put too much confidence in Jepsen. He wasn't doing well in TB and with his age, I think it's better than 50/50 that his declining results with TB will be what we see instead of spike we saw with the Twins.

 

But my biggest concern is that Molitor will still run out relievers based on seniority, not talent. He can't keep running guys out in high leverage jams because of "experience". The young guys with the ability to miss bats need to be used when you most need bats missed, not in mop up duty. Fien should NEVER be on the mound with the bases loaded and less than two outs. Unless the game's already a blowout.

[Willihammer]

 

The Cardinals have had no problem rostering Randy Choate the last 3 seasons, etc.  With a 7 man bullpen standard, that will probably swell to 8 at times, and I see no reason why there wouldn't be room for a LOOGY.

 

Other teams have similar sized bullpens too, so everybody has a short bench and can't pinch hit so easily.

 

Seems like an easy way for a suspect bullpen to improve, to smartly deploy a strict LOOGY.

Cards starters also threw 60 more IP than Twins starters last year. Or the difference of about one full time reliever. I know its technically possible to deploy a strict loogy, on a team with a good starting staff. But that does not describe the Twins and it also comes with tradeoffs (namely, a shorter bench).

[Willihammer]

I'm just annoyed with the fixation on being lefthanded. If Chargois or Burdi or Meyer or one of the other RH pitchers can do a better job, overall, they should have the roster spot. That seems like that would be best for the team.

[tobi0040]

The article mentions 18 people going for 3 spots.  Seth's comment suggests Tonkin and Nolasco will earn two of them, at least early on.

 

So we have 16 people interviewing for one job.

 

It begs a few questions for me:

 

-If you have a pen that was bottom third, borderline bottom quartile in the league last year with the cream not really rising between these sixteen to eighteen guys, doesn't that speak volumes about the level of talent we have interviewing?  Now I get that 3-4 are on minor league deals, and a few will get DFA'd, and a few others may need another month but still. 

 

-Do we have enough reps in spring training, or even in April to evaluate the best relievers?  I would argue that if a star does emerge from outside of the younger controlled guys like Burdi, Reed, etc.   Aren't they at least as likely to emerge with another team? 

 

-It seems like our strategy has been to dumpster dive in FA for the pen.  But at the same time make significant investment in the draft aimed at finding relievers.  I wonder at what point the Twins will look back and evaluate the opportunity costs of so many early picks (1st through 5th rounds) as well as the hit rate on these picks.  

 

2008 - First round (Gutierrez)

2009 - 2nd and 3rd round (Bullock and Tootle)

2011 - 3rd round (Williams)

2012 - first round, second x 2, and 4th  (Bard, Melotakis, Chargois, Jones)

2014 - second round, third round, and fifth round (Burdi, Cederoth, and Reed)

 

Some of these are still a little young.  But so far the yield has not matched the investment and given you can sign above average relievers for $3-5M a year on shorter deals, I wonder if these are smart investments.  Heck, wouldn't the signing bonuses of these picks vs. signing FA relievers be in the same ballpark

[alarp33]

 

Deunsing wasn't even good against lefties.  O'Rourke isn't all that impressive either. 

 

He's junk.

 

1st part is correct, but O'Rourke was very impressive vs lefties.  .171/.292/.268 slash line vs lefties.  The problem is he's a LOOGY in the truest sense of the term

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Cards starters also threw 60 more IP than Twins starters last year. Or the difference of about one full time reliever. I know its technically possible to deploy a strict loogy, on a team with a good starting staff. But that does not describe the Twins and it also comes with tradeoffs (namely, a shorter bench).

The starting staff should be better in 2016, though.  No aces, but just a full season from a workhorse like Santana instead of Mr. "5 IP/start" Pelfrey is going to boost your starter innings.

 

And regardless of starters, I don't think the Twins are optimally deploying the bottom half of their bullpen.  There's no need to have 3-4 generic average-ish pitchers with a target full season usage of 60 IP as they Twins have been rostering lately.  Until a better overall reliever is ready and available, they'd almost certainly be better off axing one of those interchangeable average-ish guys, rostering O'Rourke for 30 targeted innings of strict LOOGY deployment, and spreading the remaining 30 innings over the other pitchers, designating at least one to be more of a long reliever anyway and preferably having one or more with the option to send to AAA for a fresh arm when needed.

 

The Twins weren't even carrying a long reliever to soak up innings for long stretches late last season, and it showed -- early exits by the starter resulted in a parade of interchangeable 1-inning guys (including a miscast O'Rourke) for no discernible benefit.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'm just annoyed with the fixation on being lefthanded. If Chargois or Burdi or Meyer or one of the other RH pitchers can do a better job, overall, they should have the roster spot. That seems like that would be best for the team.

You'll get no argument from me, especially when we seem to target/keep "token" LHP like Duensing and Abad.

 

But until those other RH pitchers are ready, there's no shame in swapping out one of your interchangeably mediocre relief arms for a potential LH weapon.

[Thrylos]

 

The starting staff should be better in 2016, though.  No aces, but just a full season from a workhorse like Santana instead of Mr. "5 IP/start" Pelfrey is going to boost your starter innings.

 

I think that saying the Twins' lack of quality starters taxed the Twins' pen in 2015 and thus they were bad, is one of those false excuses.

 

Fact:  Other than May (who logged in 83.3 IP as a starter and 31.3 as a reliever) no Twins RP pitched more than 65 innings last season.  That's not much of a work load.  They just were not good enough...

[tobi0040]

 

The starting staff should be better in 2016, though.  No aces, but just a full season from a workhorse like Santana instead of Mr. "5 IP/start" Pelfrey is going to boost your starter innings.

 

And regardless of starters, I don't think the Twins are optimally deploying the bottom half of their bullpen.  There's no need to have 3-4 generic average-ish pitchers with a target full season usage of 60 IP as they Twins have been rostering lately.  Until a better overall reliever is ready and available, they'd almost certainly be better off axing one of those interchangeable average-ish guys, rostering O'Rourke for 30 targeted innings of strict LOOGY deployment, and spreading the remaining 30 innings over the other pitchers, designating at least one to be more of a long reliever anyway and preferably having one or more with the option to send to AAA for a fresh arm when needed.

 

The Twins weren't even carrying a long reliever to soak up innings for long stretches late last season, and it showed -- early exits by the starter resulted in a parade of interchangeable 1-inning guys (including a miscast O'Rourke) for no discernible benefit.

 

Not to mention, inexplicably keeping J.R. Graham on the roster all year at a 63, almost all low leverage innings did not help (4.95 ERA).  Hiding him all year did not help

 

I am really glad we didn't pick up and roster another reliever this year.  2014 was Graham's third go round at AA and he had a 5.58 ERA across 73 IP.  This isn't the type of guy you target and roster all year in a pennant race.

[Willihammer]

 

The starting staff should be better in 2016, though.  No aces, but just a full season from a workhorse like Santana instead of Mr. "5 IP/start" Pelfrey is going to boost your starter innings.

 

And regardless of starters, I don't think the Twins are optimally deploying the bottom half of their bullpen.  There's no need to have 3-4 generic average-ish pitchers with a target full season usage of 60 IP as they Twins have been rostering lately.  Until a better overall reliever is ready and available, they'd almost certainly be better off axing one of those interchangeable average-ish guys, rostering O'Rourke for 30 targeted innings of strict LOOGY deployment, and spreading the remaining 30 innings over the other pitchers, designating at least one to be more of a long reliever anyway and preferably having one or more with the option to send to AAA for a fresh arm when needed.

 

The Twins weren't even carrying a long reliever to soak up innings for long stretches late last season, and it showed -- early exits by the starter resulted in a parade of interchangeable 1-inning guys (including a miscast O'Rourke) for no discernible benefit.

Graham was the long reliever. Stauffer at the early part of the year.

 

Obviously if the starting staff improves, a lot of this is moot. I hope that's the case but I'm not as optimistic as you about that. I think we need to prepare for a lot of games that don't finish neatlyi with LOOGY, setup, closer, etc. That means flexibility from relievers. That means a lot of lefties facing righties and vice versa. You can only shuttle players to and from AAA so much to compensate for that. And the strength of the org quite clearly is RHRP, not LHRP. So if a LH reliever isn't among the 7 or 8 best relievers, so be it.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Willihammer

[tobi0040]

 

I think that saying the Twins' lack of quality starters taxed the Twins' pen in 2015 and thus they were bad, is one of those false excuses.

 

Fact:  Other than May (who logged in 83.3 IP as a starter and 31.3 as a reliever) no Twins RP pitched more than 65 innings last season.  That's not much of a work load.  They just were not good enough...

 

Well, Jepsen had 69 if you add TB and Perk had 57 and missed three weeks.  

 

I would say the Twins starters didn't help.  Graham made it tricky and they were also not good enough

[DocBauer]

I believe the bullpen should be better simply because Jepsen and May will be there from day 1, and I believe the rotation will be stronger overall. It's not just about the number of IP by a reliever or pen, but when they are needed, for how long, how often days in a row, etc.

 

And no...I still don't May there. But for now, I get it.

 

By this time next year, he'll maybe mid-season this year, we're going to look at someone like Burdick and Rogers and Melotakis and just love the stuffing out of our bullpen. There are some good options here. There are good options on the way.

 

But my problem remains, what about the meantime? Please don't tell me there isn't financial room and flexibility to have added a couple solid, proven arms for $10-12M that could actually make a real difference. And that money spent, probably for only 2 year deals, 3 max, would not only not handcuff the club, but would probably be tradeable assets.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Graham was the long reliever. Stauffer at the early part of the year.

Graham was actually on the DL for a bit late in the season, and in any case, he wasn't used as a long reliever (or much at all) over the season's final months.  Stauffer was never really used that way (perhaps due to ineffectiveness), he maxed out at 2 innings, often fell short of that, and ultimately was only on the roster for 6 weeks anyway.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Obviously if the starting staff improves, a lot of this is moot. I hope that's the case but I'm not as optimistic as you about that. I think we need to prepare for a lot of games that don't finish neatlyi with LOOGY, setup, closer, etc. That means flexibility from relievers. That means a lot of lefties facing righties and vice versa. You can only shuttle players to and from AAA so much to compensate for that. And the strength of the org quite clearly is RHRP, not LHRP. So if a LH reliever isn't among the 7 or 8 best relievers, so be it.

No argument here, but we didn't acquire such a pitcher this winter, and it's unlikely that our internal RHRP will be ready (and trusted) by opening day.

 

If deploying O'Rourke can help us squeeze out some early season victories in the meantime, so be it.  If he's only displacing another interchangeably mediocre RP like Abad, Kintzler, or even Tonkin if they are truly sour on him, it's not that big of a deal.

[Lee-The-Twins-Fan]

I believe Rogers, Meyers and Burki will all make significant positive impacts on the Twins relief corps in 2016. Maybe not at the start of April, but one or two will be up by the start of June. The bullpen will be OK – perhaps middle of the league.

 

But it should be good enough to reach the playoffs. I'm excited. Think about this for power: Vargas at 1B; Dozier at 2B, Escobar at SS; Plouffe at 3B; Rosario in LF, Kepler in CF, Sano in RF; Murphy at CA and Park at DH. Double-digit power threats from eight of nine positions, and 20+ homer threats from six positions. Granted, Buxton and Mauer are on the bench, but it could happen in 2016.

 

(I know, I know, that's not what this thread is all about).

 

But this power could make up for some of the shortcomings of the relief corps. Just a thought.

[Shaitan]

RP is also the one position Ryan has consistently traded for at the deadline. It seems that his philosophy is it's a position that makes sense to upgrade mid-season. I'm not saying they should ignore April-July, but that the bullpen is more fluid than many parts of the roster. If 1/4 of the roster are relievers, it seems like 1 will be on the DL at almost any given point.

[tobi0040]

 

RP is also the one position Ryan has consistently traded for at the deadline. It seems that his philosophy is it's a position that makes sense to upgrade mid-season. I'm not saying they should ignore April-July, but that the bullpen is more fluid than many parts of the roster. If 1/4 of the roster are relievers, it seems like 1 will be on the DL at almost any given point.

 

I agree that has historically been the approach.  I just don't get why we need to wait 100 games into the season to upgrade a spot that clearly needs it.  

 

It has been management/ownerships approach and they talk about it every offseason.  Something to the effect of "we can add mid-season", as if that is somehow a supportive statement.

 

It has always rubbed me the wrong way.  We will see where we are at after 100 games and then decide at that point if we should make an investment.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

RP is also the one position Ryan has consistently traded for at the deadline.

Consistently?  Jepsen and Cotts last year, then... Todd Jones back in 2001?  I guess Bill Smith added Rauch, Fuentes, and Capps, and to be fair the Twins didn't really have a need for another reliever in most of those TR years, but then again, I'm not sure we have enough data to say much here.

 

I'm not sure if it's anything more than the fact that relievers are generally cheaper to acquire than other positions, especially now that draft pick compensation has mostly been removed from them.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I agree that has historically been the approach.  I just don't get why we need to wait 100 games into the season to upgrade a spot that clearly needs it.  

 

It has been management/ownerships approach and they talk about it every offseason.  Something to the effect of "we can add mid-season", as if that is somehow a supportive statement.

 

It has always rubbed me the wrong way.  We will see where we are at after 100 games and then decide at that point if we should make an investment.

To be fair, a lot of teams take that kind of approach, which is why you don't see many trades of significance from March until July.  But it seems that sometimes the Twins apply this philosophy as long as November through July...

[brvama]

Regression is the key point.  Problem is, the Twins bullpen last year was pretty solidly mediocre no matter how you slice it.  So if a good performance like Jepsen regresses down, and Fien or Perkins regress back up, you're still left with the same overall mediocre performance.

IIRC last year's bullpen consisted of more than Perkins, Jepson, and Fein.

[tobi0040]

To be fair, a lot of teams take that kind of approach, which is why you don't see many trades of significance from March until July. But it seems that sometimes the Twins apply this philosophy as long as November through July...

It is hard to say because I don't follow other teams. But we knew we had a hole, said it was a priority, and did nothing about it. Knowing that we may address it later.

 

Just because other teams make trades at the deadline doesn't mean they knew they had a hole in March. Maybe they got hit with injuries or a guy that can usually be counted on faltered.

[Otto von Ballpark]

IIRC last year's bullpen consisted of more than Perkins, Jepson, and Fein.

Of course, I didn't say otherwise. I just used those names as examples. Same principles apply to the other spots.