Article: Whiff Of Success: Gibson Making Bats Miss

[drjim]

I admit, I've been very down on Gibson for a couple years now, even after 2015 when others we're convinced he'd turned a corner then.

But, if he is the rare guy that finds something new at age 30, then obviously that's great for all involved.

And, I'll be happy to eat crow if he has figured it out.

And really, all "figured it out" would mean in the immediate future is that he is an acceptable back end guy for $5 mil next year.

[yarnivek1972]

And really, all "figured it out" would mean in the immediate future is that he is an acceptable back end guy for $5 mil next year.

But when you already have Mejia who has performed easily as well as a back end guy and makes basically minimum salary, doesn't it make more sense to spend that $5 mil elsewhere?

[Mr. Brooks]

But when you already have Mejia who has performed easily as well as a back end guy and makes basically minimum salary, doesn't it make more sense to spend that $5 mil elsewhere?

There is plenty of room in this rotation for competent back end starters, IMO.

Even with an FA or two.

 

Berrios is the only SP on roster that I have full confidence in for 2018.

Santana has been good, but that could end at any moment.

[yarnivek1972]

There is plenty of room in this rotation for competent back end starters, IMO.

Even with an FA or two.

 

Berrios is the only SP on roster that I have full confidence in for 2018.

Santana has been good, but that could end at any moment.

But is there payroll flexibility. I think that's the bigger issue. I think expecting payroll to be much over $115 mil is wishful thinking. Management is well aware that a bunch of guys will have big paydays shortly.

[Rosterman]

It is a tough call. $5 million for Gibson? If you let him walk now, you really can't sign him back right away.

 

Would be interesting to see what the market for the guy truly is.

 

But as we saw already, he had no value last season. And when you could've traded him this year he was horrible or disabled. 

 

Can you spend that money better elsewhere?

 

The question is: how far do the Twins really go this season (slightly above .500). Do they make the playoffs? Is next season STILL a rebuild year towards 2019, or not?

[Nick Nelson]

FWIW – Gibson's swinging strike rate in his first September start was 12%, right in line with the exceptional mark from August. 

[kab21]

 

FWIW – Gibson's swinging strike rate in his first September start was 12%, right in line with the exceptional mark from August. 

It is also right in line with most of his starts in April and May.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Here are post All-Star stats for the four main rotation members; Ervin, Berrios, Bartolo, and Gibson:

 

ES: 10 GS 4.04ERA, 62.1IP, 61H, 57K,18BB,1.27 WHIP

JB: 10 GS 4.67ERA, 52ip,48H, 53K, 17bb,1.25

BC: 10GS, 3.94, 61.2ip, 76h, 38k, 11bb, 1.41

KG: 8GS, 3.64, 47IP, 49H, 44k, 14bb, 1.34

 

He has a "repeat" performance tonight against the Royals. Let's hope he can keep this run going.

[yarnivek1972]

I am not sure how Gibson is to blame that the twins only have 2 pitchers better than him.

Gibson hasn't been pitching well for the last few weeks, he has been pitching well since the end of May (which is the last few months, not weeks)

I don't think anybody has said invest in him long term, but he is only 30 and right now there aren't too many free agents to be that I want to spend big money on. I wouldn't pencil him in for the 2018 rotation either, but while he is inconsistent at times I rather him in the 5th spot then any one of are minor league prospects at least starting 18.

 

I would say what I blame Gibson for in terms of where he slots as a starter is that, at this point in his career, he isn't more than a number 4.  To a large degree, that IS on him.  He simply can't be counted on to show any consistency and lacks command of his pitches.  Problems that, as I mentioned before, shouldn't be the case of a near 30 year old with 4 full seasons and part of another at the MLB level.

 

I strongly disagree with the notion that Gibson has pitched "well" since the end of May.  In June, Gibson made 6 starts.  He did not get past the 6th inning in any of them.  Two were technically "quality starts" (which means 4 weren't).  In one of his "quality starts", he allowed 11 baserunners and 2 HR in 6 IP.  That he allowed only 3 runs was less skill and more luck IMO.  In the other, he allowed 8 baserunners in his 6 IP.  That's not too bad for him, but I still have a difficult time calling that "pitching well".  A couple other outings from June included a game in which he allowed 12 hits and another in which he walked 4.  This is part of what you describe as "pitching well".

 

 

Let's move to July.  He made four starts, two were "quality".  In the other two, there was a another 4 walk game and a game in which he allowed 7 runs, on 9 H, 2 BB and 2 HR.  Ironically, he was shipped back to AAA after what was perhaps his best start in July.  The FO felt he was pitching so "well" that they sent him down.

 

Moving on to August.  In his first three starts after his recall he failed to complete 6 innings.  In two, failed to complete 5.  I'm sorry, I have a REAL hard time calling this pitching "well".

 

So, yeah, since (and including) his start on 8/22, the results are good.  But again, he was facing the 12th, 13th and 14th ranked teams in the AL in terms of OPS.  I keep bringing it up because IMO it matters.  I'm well aware that some of the other Twins' starters struggled against those same teams.  It's a fair enough point.  But this isn't about them.  This is about Gibson and whether he has turned some magical corner in his career.

 

IMO, I see no change in Gibson from last year.  He is still a guy who shows flashes of borderline brilliance.  But he still has WAY too many outings where he is simply terrible.  btw, after his starts against Toronto and Chicago, the first post of this thread pointed out that he had gotten more swings and misses in those starts.  That those two teams are playing out the string was a factor IMO.  In his two starts against Kansas City he threw 176 pitches and had 14 swings and misses, an 8% swing and miss rate. 

 

As it stands right now, I would rather spend the $ 5 mil or so that Gibson will likely get in arbitration on someone else.  I'm pretty confident there will be guys out there that can put up a 5 ERA for less than that.  Perhaps, if he does well down the stretch (including potential upcoming games against the Yankees and Indians), I may change my opinion.

[howieramone2]

No doubt Gibson will be back next season. A 4/5 is worth 6-8 million. Gibson is cheap and has trade value.

[Tomj14]

 

I would say what I blame Gibson for in terms of where he slots as a starter is that, at this point in his career, he isn't more than a number 4.  To a large degree, that IS on him.  He simply can't be counted on to show any consistency and lacks command of his pitches.  Problems that, as I mentioned before, shouldn't be the case of a near 30 year old with 4 full seasons and part of another at the MLB level.

 

I strongly disagree with the notion that Gibson has pitched "well" since the end of May.  In June, Gibson made 6 starts.  He did not get past the 6th inning in any of them.  Two were technically "quality starts" (which means 4 weren't).  In one of his "quality starts", he allowed 11 baserunners and 2 HR in 6 IP.  That he allowed only 3 runs was less skill and more luck IMO.  In the other, he allowed 8 baserunners in his 6 IP.  That's not too bad for him, but I still have a difficult time calling that "pitching well".  A couple other outings from June included a game in which he allowed 12 hits and another in which he walked 4.  This is part of what you describe as "pitching well".

 

 

Let's move to July.  He made four starts, two were "quality".  In the other two, there was a another 4 walk game and a game in which he allowed 7 runs, on 9 H, 2 BB and 2 HR.  Ironically, he was shipped back to AAA after what was perhaps his best start in July.  The FO felt he was pitching so "well" that they sent him down.

 

Moving on to August.  In his first three starts after his recall he failed to complete 6 innings.  In two, failed to complete 5.  I'm sorry, I have a REAL hard time calling this pitching "well".

 

So, yeah, since (and including) his start on 8/22, the results are good.  But again, he was facing the 12th, 13th and 14th ranked teams in the AL in terms of OPS.  I keep bringing it up because IMO it matters.  I'm well aware that some of the other Twins' starters struggled against those same teams.  It's a fair enough point.  But this isn't about them.  This is about Gibson and whether he has turned some magical corner in his career.

 

IMO, I see no change in Gibson from last year.  He is still a guy who shows flashes of borderline brilliance.  But he still has WAY too many outings where he is simply terrible.  btw, after his starts against Toronto and Chicago, the first post of this thread pointed out that he had gotten more swings and misses in those starts.  That those two teams are playing out the string was a factor IMO.  In his two starts against Kansas City he threw 176 pitches and had 14 swings and misses, an 8% swing and miss rate. 

 

As it stands right now, I would rather spend the $ 5 mil or so that Gibson will likely get in arbitration on someone else.  I'm pretty confident there will be guys out there that can put up a 5 ERA for less than that.  Perhaps, if he does well down the stretch (including potential upcoming games against the Yankees and Indians), I may change my opinion.

You can say that about 90% of all pitchers failing to live up to expectations, sometimes they are who they are. Moliter has made some weird decisions with him all year, there was a stretch were he took him out as soon as a guy got on base after the 4th. Not saying he didn't deserve not to be trusted but how many pitchers pitch well knowing after the 4th they have to pitch no hit, not walk ball the rest of the way?

Name one pitcher that is a 4/5 for a team having a better second half then Gibson.

He is 75th in innings pitched this year in the majors. I say good luck to finding a starter to replace him for 5 million, unless it is a rookie and lets be honest when was the last rookie that was consistent on the Twins?

 

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Tomj14

[yarnivek1972]

This isn't about expectations. This about a guy showing few signs of progress over the course of 4 years.

[howieramone2]

 

This isn't about expectations. This about a guy showing few signs of progress over the course of 4 years.

Kind of like board favorite Vargas. The difference is Gibson will be in The Show for at least the next few years and has trade value.

[yarnivek1972]

Kind of like board favorite Vargas. The difference is Gibson will be in The Show for at least the next few years and has trade value.

Another difference is that Vargas isn't among the worst hitters in Twins history. Prior to the last 4 starts, I believe Gibson was the worst pitcher in Twins history with over 400 IP.

[Kwak]

 

 

Name one pitcher that is a 4/5 for a team having a better second half then Gibson.

 

Game on!

 

Kluber:  4-1 2.0 ERA in last 5

 

Bauer:  5-0 2.67 ERA in last 5

 

Clevinger:  3-1 +1 ND  2.16 ERA in last 5

 

Carrasco:  3-1 +1 ND  2.02 EWRA in last 5

 

Tomlin:  4-0 +1 ND  2.54 in last 5

 

I stopped looking--there might be more.

[Tomj14]

 

Game on!

 

Kluber:  4-1 2.0 ERA in last 5

 

Bauer:  5-0 2.67 ERA in last 5

 

Clevinger:  3-1 +1 ND  2.16 ERA in last 5

 

Carrasco:  3-1 +1 ND  2.02 EWRA in last 5

 

Tomlin:  4-0 +1 ND  2.54 in last 5

 

I stopped looking--there might be more.

are you saying Kluber, Bauer and Carrasco are number 4 or 5 starters? I will give you Tonlin and Clevinger

[Kwak]

 

are you saying Kluber, Bauer and Carrasco are number 4 or 5 starters? I will give you Tonlin and Clevinger

He said 4 (out of 5), ergo, 4 wins in 5 decisions.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think you might be the only one that interpreted it in terms of win/loss instead of 4th/5th starters

 

The point is that Gibby is pitching way better than a 4/5 type right now... whether it lasts is a different issue.

[USAFChief]

The concept of "a #4 starter" or "a #2 starter" is a pretty meaningless way to look at starting pitchers.

 

Wins and losses count the same no matter if they come from the guy who started opening day, or started the 5th game of the season.  

 

Starters should be looked at in terms of how they perform, not which day of the week.  Every team wants the five best starters they can get.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Some takes on Gibson over at Fangraphs :

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/pitcher-spotlight-kyle-gibson-and-robert-stephenson/

[yarnivek1972]

The concept of "a #4 starter" or "a #2 starter" is a pretty meaningless way to look at starting pitchers.

 

Wins and losses count the same no matter if they come from the guy who started opening day, or started the 5th game of the season.

 

Starters should be looked at in terms of how they perform, not which day of the week. Every team wants the five best starters they can get.

I guess when I am labeling a pitcher with a number, it IS based on his performance. A ranking relative to his team, and even relative to the league. That is, just because Brad Radke was the Twins number one for much of his career, doesn'g mean he was one of the 30 best in MLB.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

He said 4 (out of 5), ergo, 4 wins in 5 decisions.

No, he didn't. He said "name one pitcher that is a 4/5"...

[jimmer]

Radke was a top 30 SP in at least half of his seasons.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Radke was a top 30 SP in at least half of his seasons.

By which metric? Not arguing, legitimately curious. Radke was underrated but top 30 seems pretty high to me.

[jimmer]

 

By which metric? Not arguing, legitimately curious. Radke was underrated but top 30 seems pretty high to me.

fWAR

Edited September 12, 2017 by jimmer

[Mr. Brooks]

fWAR

WAR is a counting stat, so any above average starting pitcher who stays healthy for the full season is likely going to crack the top 30 in WAR for that individual season.

That may make them one of the 30 "most valuable" pitchers that year, but is that the same as actually being one of the 30 best?

Maybe it does, I'm just thinking out loud.

If Pedro misses 15 starts, and his counting stats suffer, he's still one of the best in baseball, IMO, despite fWAR disagreeing. (That's just a hypothetical BTW.

 

Then again, staying healthy is a valuable skill, so we should credit that.

 

I'm not sure, but yeah Radke was really good, and underrated.

[drjim]

I always thought Radke was properly rated, as shown by the attempts to wish every pitcher that has good control but not elite heat will become just like him. A poor man's Maddux!

[jimmer]

 

WAR is a counting stat, so any above average starting pitcher who stays healthy for the full season is likely going to crack the top 30 in WAR for that individual season.
That may make them one of the 30 "most valuable" pitchers that year, but is that the same as actually being one of the 30 best?
Maybe it does, I'm just thinking out loud.
If Pedro misses 15 starts, and his counting stats suffer, he's still one of the best in baseball, IMO, despite fWAR disagreeing. (That's just a hypothetical BTW.

Then again, staying healthy is a valuable skill, so we should credit that.

I'm not sure, but yeah Radke was really good, and underrated.

We could also use FIP, though that wouldn't make it half his seasons, just 5 out of 12 :-)

 

In any event, I always thought Radke was a top 30 pitcher in his time who wasn't considered one cause of the whole win/loss stat.  Easily my 2nd favorite Twins starting pitcher of all time.

Edited September 13, 2017 by jimmer

[Otto von Ballpark]

By which metric? Not arguing, legitimately curious. Radke was underrated but top 30 seems pretty high to me.

Radke ranks among MLB qualifiers:

 

1996, 29th in ERA-, 14th in IP.

 

1997, 27th in ERA-, and 9th in IP.

 

1998, 40th in ERA-, 33rd in IP.

 

1999, 9th in ERA-, 5th in IP.

 

2000, 35th in ERA-, 11th in IP.

 

2001, 29th in ERA-, 15th in IP.

 

...

 

2004, 10th in ERA-, 12th in IP.

Edited September 13, 2017 by spycake

[yarnivek1972]

In an ironic twist, arguably Brad Radke's best statistical season was 2004.  He ranked 3rd in the AL for bWAR among pitchers and 3rd in ERA+.  Of course, he ranked 2nd on his team.