What's to Blame for the Rotation?

[diehardtwinsfan]

John, that is interesting and surprising that no one blasted the Twins for going into the season with Baker, Liriano, Pavano, Blackburn, and Marquis/Hendriks. Given how disastrous things turned out, its understandable that we have collectively revised our own history about the level of consternation we felt. From reading the comments, one would have to be so completely incompetent to rely on that rotation that firing them is a no-brainer.

 

 

apparently you didn't read BYTO

[nokomismod]

At this point in 2010 Pavano, Liriano and Slowey were having good seasons. Blackburn and Baker were signed through 2013. The FO could have thought the rotation was set for a few years. Wimmers was in the low minors and would not have been part of the plan for 2012. Gibson would have allowed them to trade Slowey. The FO did not extend his contract, he would have been the odd man out. Who could have foreseen how 2011 played out with the ineffectiveness of those starters, then the injuries that continued into 2012.

 

Absolutely. It all fell apart so fast. Pavano, Liriano, Baker, Blackburn, Slowey all had double digit wins that year and pitched over 150 innings each. Then you had Duensing finish the year as a starter and did ok (I think he took over when Slowey went down). All those guys were ages 26-28 except Pavano. Then there was Perkins (still a starter at that time in AAA), Swarzak (prospect star fading, but still only 24 at that time), Gibson (22) at AA along with Guerra (21) and two more 21 year olds in Wimmers/Hendricks at A ball. Wow that blew up fast....

 

It's astonishing isn't it?! I was feeling pretty good about your rotation at that time too. I guess you can never have too much in the bank just in case.

[nokomismod]

I'll say this: I did a weekly podcast where we reviewed every move the Twins made. At no time do I remember us blasting the Twins for going into this season with the rotation they had. The biggest concerns were the bullpen and lineup. I'm as surprised by this year's meltdown as anyone.

 

It certainly was a weak crop of FA starters. There really wasn't anyone on the market that was going to put this rotation over the top so I can't really fault TR for not signing more of them.

 

But even with a healthy Baker and Pavano this rotation was mediocre at best.

TR might have looked at this season as more of a "what do we have here?" and "let's stop the bleeding". He needed to find out if Mauer and Morneau could be counted on to contribute again before going after guys like CJ Wilson. I know I would have wanted to know if my two core players were back before trying to make a run again. He did the right thing in letting Kubes and Cuddyer go, bringing in Doumit, Carrol, and Willingham. It's this offseason that he better go for it though. The rest of the team is ready and the window will close soon with this core.

[bird]

Sorry, I misread Mr. Bonnes' comment. I am no longer surprised, Boom Boom.

[LaBombo]

 

So that simple a change completely screws with my whole "gag" here? Excuse me for forgetting Liriano was good for a year. 2010 being the only good season of the past 4 years can make a person forget when it wasn't really what I was basing my point around anyway. Throw Liriano in instead of Wimmers at 4 or even higher I really don't care. I thought it was likely Wimmers would be in the bigs in 2012. That actually makes it look like a better rotation they forecasted.

 

You were talking about the Twins front office and their best guess in 2010 what a 2012 rotation might look like. They obviously had no idea what Liriano would do in 2011 and 2012 or they would've traded him after the 2010 season. So your point about "1 good season in 4" is irrelevant.

 

After the 2010 Liriano was 26, a fringe Cy candidate, and cheap through 2012. Alex Wimmers was a 21 year old with 15 innings of A ball under his belt. Suggesting that the front office projected Wimmers as a 2012 major league starter over Liriano at that point is absurd.

 

So your predicted rotation becomes Liriano, Baker, Pavano, Blackburn, and Gibson. Your point was that unforeseeable injuries ruined that rotation.

My contention is that even then it didn't look great, and by the end of 2011 it should've been obvious that NONE of those guys could be counted on in 2012.

 

Setting aside that wildcard Liriano guy you forgot about, the 2010 winter meeting FO brain trust was rightly (according to you) counting on these guys to anchor the 2012 rotation:

 

Baker: Almost as maddening as Liriano. Very good stuff, but zero previous seasons in which he wasn't either injured or mediocre.

 

Pavano: Coming off a good season which also saw his K rate plummet by 2.5/9 innings. 36 years old at the start of the 2012 season.

 

Blackburn. One of the most hittable pitchers in MLB, he got worse in 2010. Miniscule K rate went even lower.

 

Gibson: A rapidly rising star, he finished his first year of pro ball in AAA.

 

So Gibson was a promising but unknown quantity who suffered a serious injury. But how on earth can you say that any of the other three tanking was some sort of unforeseeable shock? None of the four pitchers had pitched 200+ innings more than once in the three preceding seasons.

 

And at the end of 2011 it should've been obvious that not a single one of the guys in your projected rotation could be counted on. The Twins responded to their shattered rotation plan by signing Jason Marquis and conceding the 2012 season. That's no big deal if he's just a body while you rebuild, but the Twins haven't behaved much like a rebuilding team.

 

If you think that an organization finds itself with a rotation full of castoffs because of bad luck, you've got to make a better case than that.

[TheLeviathan]

Well said Labombo - the shock some people are feigning that this rotation wasn't very good this year is pretty hard to swallow. It wasn't good to start with and not much of a leap to have predicted they'd be awful.

[twinsnorth49]

The rotation was really based on a wing and a prayer, no logical person could say otherwise given the past performances, injury history and advancing age of the 5 they decided to go with. Is that all TR really had to work with however?

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

 

So that simple a change completely screws with my whole "gag" here? Excuse me for forgetting Liriano was good for a year. 2010 being the only good season of the past 4 years can make a person forget when it wasn't really what I was basing my point around anyway. Throw Liriano in instead of Wimmers at 4 or even higher I really don't care. I thought it was likely Wimmers would be in the bigs in 2012. That actually makes it look like a better rotation they forecasted.

 

You were talking about the Twins front office and their best guess in 2010 what a 2012 rotation might look like. They obviously had no idea what Liriano would do in 2011 and 2012 or they would've traded him after the 2010 season. So your point about "1 good season in 4" is irrelevant.

 

After the 2010 Liriano was 26, a fringe Cy candidate, and cheap through 2012. Alex Wimmers was a 21 year old with 15 innings of A ball under his belt. Suggesting that the front office projected Wimmers as a 2012 major league starter over Liriano at that point is absurd.

 

So your predicted rotation becomes Liriano, Baker, Pavano, Blackburn, and Gibson. Your point was that unforeseeable injuries ruined that rotation.

My contention is that even then it didn't look great, and by the end of 2011 it should've been obvious that NONE of those guys could be counted on in 2012.

 

Setting aside that wildcard Liriano guy you forgot about, the 2010 winter meeting FO brain trust was rightly (according to you) counting on these guys to anchor the 2012 rotation:

 

Baker: Almost as maddening as Liriano. Very good stuff, but zero previous seasons in which he wasn't either injured or mediocre.

 

Pavano: Coming off a good season which also saw his K rate plummet by 2.5/9 innings. 36 years old at the start of the 2012 season.

 

Blackburn. One of the most hittable pitchers in MLB, he got worse in 2010. Miniscule K rate went even lower.

 

Gibson: A rapidly rising star, he finished his first year of pro ball in AAA.

 

So Gibson was a promising but unknown quantity who suffered a serious injury. But how on earth can you say that any of the other three tanking was some sort of unforeseeable shock? None of the four pitchers had pitched 200+ innings more than once in the three preceding seasons.

 

And at the end of 2011 it should've been obvious that not a single one of the guys in your projected rotation could be counted on. The Twins responded to their shattered rotation plan by signing Jason Marquis and conceding the 2012 season. That's no big deal if he's just a body while you rebuild, but the Twins haven't behaved much like a rebuilding team.

 

If you think that an organization finds itself with a rotation full of castoffs because of bad luck, you've got to make a better case than that.

 

The first statement you bolded wasn't actually a point. I had forgotten 2010 was Liriano's best season. The past few had muffled my image of him. Liriano was certainly showing flashes of an ace and the rotation did have a lot of promise.

 

1. Liriano- who like you said a Cy Young candidate. His slider and fastball were both plus pitches and a potential #1 pitcher fills the ace slot here.

 

2. Gibson- was projecting to be a #2 and was on the fast track to making the team in as soon as 2011. A #2 in the number two slot.

 

3. Baker- had a 4.32 Career ERA following 2010. His decent 7.1 K/9 made it acceptable to think he could be a #3 (Where he proved to be capable of doing so in 2011.)

 

4. Carl Pavano- probably the 2nd best season of his career where he eclipsed 200 innings. Regression was likely of course, but a 4/5 spot should have been manageable.

 

5. Nick Blackburn- an awful 2010 campaign with suspected hope he could become his 4ERA version of the past two years.

Not a 'bad' #5, but could have been much better and it was foolish to give him a big extension.

 

DEPTH

Wimmers- Projected as a 3. Could have been knocking for the #5 spot in the early point of his career.

Bromberg- I didn't mention him originally. But he had excellent year in Rochester in 2010. A 3.98 ERA, 1.154 WHIP, and a 8.1 K/9 as a 22 year old.

Waldrop- looked like a back end guy, but he did post a 2.57 ERA and a 6.1 K/9 in AAA

 

Not only does it look promising, but they have the appropriate potential/expected production for each spot as well. How convenient to have a #1 in the 1, a #2 in the 2, and so forth. Only Baker and to some extent Pavano performed to the appropriate measure in 2011. And all flamed out 2012 (even all 3 of depth). I just don't think it's crazy to think that most of your pitchers can perform consistently over a time span of a few years. I mean what do you pay them for? I guess not and after a little more research, there is some more depth than I expected.

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

Well said Labombo - the shock some people are feigning that this rotation wasn't very good this year is pretty hard to swallow. It wasn't good to start with and not much of a leap to have predicted they'd be awful.

 

Surely not a 'leap' to think so this year because you saw 2011. The point was was it predictable after a season like 2010? To have all 5 projected starters fail.

[LaBombo]

Agree to disagree, I guess. If you can look at a kid with 15 innings of AAA, 3 veterans who had collectively managed consecutive healthy, above-average seasons zero times in their careers, and a guy who'd done it once in 13 years and was already in his mid-30's with a drastically dropping K rate... and see a promising, reliable rotation, well, you're more of a glass half full guy than I am.

 

At any rate, you have every right to chalk it up to bad luck if you like. Instead, I see an organization that has shot itself in one foot with a misguided talent valuation philosophy that undervalues pitcher strikeouts (among other problems), and then shot itself in the other with sub-par diagnose and treatment of injuries. Ryan is a huge step up from BS in terms of trading players and signing free agents, but I'm waiting to see some signs that they're moving out of the Dark Ages of baseball before I start doing cartwheels.

[TheLeviathan]

Agree to disagree, I guess. If you can look at a kid with 15 innings of AAA, 3 veterans who had collectively managed consecutive healthy, above-average seasons zero times in their careers, and a guy who'd done it once in 13 years and was already in his mid-30's with a drastically dropping K rate... and see a promising, reliable rotation, well, you're more of a glass half full guy than I am.

 

At any rate, you have every right to chalk it up to bad luck if you like. Instead, I see an organization that has shot itself in one foot with a misguided talent valuation philosophy that undervalues pitcher strikeouts (among other problems), and then shot itself in the other with sub-par diagnose and treatment of injuries. Ryan is a huge step up from BS in terms of trading players and signing free agents, but I'm waiting to see some signs that they're moving out of the Dark Ages of baseball before I start doing cartwheels.

 

Couldn't have said it better. If you want to hide behind "bad luck" you're overlooking some pretty significant historical track records for the guys they went with.

[John Bonnes]

Hey, there are always people who can point to criticism during the offserason of not having enough of this or that. All I'm saying is that I don't remember eAaron, who is hardly hesitant to be candid, nor I focused on the rotation. I don't remmber a lot of chatter about it. The Twins had bigger fish to fry. The bullpen was a mess last year. The lineup lost a ton of talent and had a ton of question marks. I'm trying to remember how many of the GM Handbook plans I saw that had overhauling the pitching staff as a priority. Not many, I don't think.

[Basher12]

I don't see why everyone's so upset....Between Deduno, DeVries, PJ Walters, and Duensing...thats like 20 Cy Youngs right there

[LaBombo]

Hey, there are always people who can point to criticism during the offserason of not having enough of this or that. All I'm saying is that I don't remember eAaron, who is hardly hesitant to be candid, nor I focused on the rotation. I don't remmber a lot of chatter about it. The Twins had bigger fish to fry. The bullpen was a mess last year. The lineup lost a ton of talent and had a ton of question marks. I'm trying to remember how many of the GM Handbook plans I saw that had overhauling the pitching staff as a priority. Not many, I don't think.

 

Are we talking about the same thing? The OP was talking about how surprising the current state of the Twins rotation is relative to how locked in it seemed looking forward to this year from the 2010 offseason, not this past offseason.

 

Following the 2010 season the only lineup issues were replacing Hudson and wondering how much of the team's offensive decline was Target-induced. On the other hand, the rotation was Liriano and question marks.

 

You're right about the hindsight 20/20, dime a dozen on the internet thing. And yet I still reject the idea that a rotation like that of the opening day 2012 Twins built exclusively of guys with a history of falling apart...fell apart... is like being hit by lightning from a clear blue sky.

 

No. It's more like being hit by lightning from a sky like the one that forms over the Nazis at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

[Guest USAFChief]

I remember the general consensus at BYTO in March being the Twins would be as good as the starting pitching, and that the starting pitching was pretty iffy.

[jokin]

Hey, there are always people who can point to criticism during the offserason of not having enough of this or that. All I'm saying is that I don't remember eAaron, who is hardly hesitant to be candid, nor I focused on the rotation. I don't remmber a lot of chatter about it. The Twins had bigger fish to fry. The bullpen was a mess last year. The lineup lost a ton of talent and had a ton of question marks. I'm trying to remember how many of the GM Handbook plans I saw that had overhauling the pitching staff as a priority. Not many, I don't think.

 

Go back and check multiple sites. The unwashed masses, of which I am a proud member were for the most part on top of the rickety state of the SP staff and were in general agreement in calling for the acquisition of one or more ( I wanted 3) quality to above-replacement-level FA starting arms and removal of the detritus from the rotation for whatever the market would bring.

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

Agree to disagree, I guess. If you can look at a kid with 15 innings of AAA, 3 veterans who had collectively managed consecutive healthy, above-average seasons zero times in their careers, and a guy who'd done it once in 13 years and was already in his mid-30's with a drastically dropping K rate... and see a promising, reliable rotation, well, you're more of a glass half full guy than I am.

 

At any rate, you have every right to chalk it up to bad luck if you like. Instead, I see an organization that has shot itself in one foot with a misguided talent valuation philosophy that undervalues pitcher strikeouts (among other problems), and then shot itself in the other with sub-par diagnose and treatment of injuries. Ryan is a huge step up from BS in terms of trading players and signing free agents, but I'm waiting to see some signs that they're moving out of the Dark Ages of baseball before I start doing cartwheels.

 

It would seem like it. I just don't see this happen elsewhere in the MLB where everything on a contending team's rotation ends up in the scrap heap. There's no use of explaining either side much more and I have no problem with what you're saying. I just think they (FO) have done more than people realize and it's unfair to be highly critical even if they are accountable. Being a GM is difficult and while the plan looked good in my view and the Twins of course, it was risky enough to end up where we are now. Too often there are 'geniuses' who tear apart the Twins thinking and act proud when it blows up in their face as they had so 'predicted' (or claim to). I'm not accusing you of doing so obviously since you backed up your point despite it being very pessimistic. I used 2010 as my example since it was the last good year (duh ). Further back is when things started to crumble, but it would have been more difficult to trace and much would have been bogus speculation anyway: like oh they could have drafted him instead, acquired this guy, etc. I suppose all we can agree on is that it took bad turn and is a mess now. At the very least a few young players, who never would have otherwise, made the show and had their dreams come true.

[Badsmerf]

I remember the general consensus at BYTO in March being the Twins would be as good as the starting pitching, and that the starting pitching was pretty iffy.

iffy is being generous. Once Baker went down it was over. Add Pavano early in the season on top of it and the Twins had no chance. Adding them two pitching to expectations (reasonable ones) and the Twins could be around 500. That is only winning 8 more games. Even if everyone was healthy though, this team would have trouble competing for a playoff spot.

[Nick Nelson]

I will say that, personally, starting pitching was definitely my top concern entering this season.

 

As long as the injury bug doesn't bite hard again, the lineup should be decent at worst, with the potential to be quite good if, say, Justin Morneau's late spring performance is a sign of things to come or Chris Parmelee is for real. With that said, this offense isn't going to be confused with the Yankees. If the Twins are to stay afloat in the AL Central, they're going to need quality pitching, which was in short supply last year.

 

It's here that my optimism fades somewhat. If all goes well with the starters – Francisco Liriano commands his fastball, Scott Baker's elbow doesn't blow up, Carl Pavano craftily succeeds, Nick Blackburn returns to 2008/09 form and Jason Marquis throws strikes – the rotation could be an asset. But, so rarely does all go well. Whereas the lineup has suitable depth, it's not clear that the Twins will be prepared to adequately replace multiple starters if that need arises.

 

I don't think I was alone in my concerns about the unit. Many others echoed the same sentiments.

[Siehbiscuit]

Back to the pitching and reasons why... I haven't read anyone mention anything about our minor league pitching coaches and their inability to develop pitching. I look at the many teams around the league that every year have 2-3 AA and AAA guys that are competing for the last spot in the rotation and this happens year after year for those teams. Look at the Rays, they always have quality young arms coming up. I don't think the draft has been the problem at all. Injuries to the Twins parent club has derailed the team, but not having developed prospects has sunk the team. Did Liriano ever get better than he was when we originally got him San Fran? My biggest gripe is our pitchers don't seem to get better year after year. Our hitters seem to develop, not as greatly as a fan wishes, but more in line with the rest of the league. The Twins pitching philosophy might need to be changed, amended or tweaked. Not just the "pitch to contact"-thing, but more like what Nolan Ryan's philosophy has instilled in the Rangers. They don't have any "aces" that they brought through their system, but the get stronger and better year after year. With the Rangers its not about pitch counts its about each pitcher knowing their limits and pushing through a little more. Mental toughness is amazing in that organization and something that our team really needs.

 

I love seeing our young bats developing. That is very encouraging. The pitching prospects need to grow in a similar way and that comes from an organizational philosophy and a staff that can implement it and push these kids to get better each time out. Our pitchers have to be better developed from the lowest levels to our parent club.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Hey, there are always people who can point to criticism during the offserason of not having enough of this or that. All I'm saying is that I don't remember eAaron, who is hardly hesitant to be candid, nor I focused on the rotation. I don't remmber a lot of chatter about it. The Twins had bigger fish to fry. The bullpen was a mess last year. The lineup lost a ton of talent and had a ton of question marks. I'm trying to remember how many of the GM Handbook plans I saw that had overhauling the pitching staff as a priority. Not many, I don't think.

 

I'll have to respectfully disagree here John. Though last year there were so many questionmarks and only so much to go around. Though in defense of the FO, with the budget TR had, he could not have fixed every hole this offseason, but I remember a number of occasions where my main concern was the rotation. Baker and Liriano were the only two that had a chance of being above average pitchers, and both of them had some pretty signficiant question marks. That said, I don't get the enfatuation with spending tons of cash on relief pitchers. Bullpens will do a ton better if starters are consistently going 6-7 innings/start... You give them decent starters, and they improve on their own.