Slotting the Twins Among MLB's Franchise Players

[Matthew Trueblood]

Star power isn't everything in baseball. Still, do the Twins need a bit more of it?This month, a group of 30 Baseball Prospectus writers has wheeled through four rounds, drafting “franchise players” with whom to begin an imaginary organization. Contributor Kazuto Yamazaki proposed the exercise, an unusually expansive spin on a familiar idea. It’s still not complete, but the draft has been illuminating, not least in the way it’s helped me conceptualize the Twins’ current standing among MLB teams.

 

For the purposes of this draft, we imagined that all contracts were thrown out. Participants were instructed not to ponder a player’s current salary or service time; the only criteria were present and future performance. As one would imagine, there remained a strong bias in favor of younger players (who wants to start their franchise with a 35-year-old, even if they’re a surefire Hall of Famer?), but without the universe of current contracts as an overriding consideration, we were free to weigh players’ strengths and weaknesses with unusual clarity.

 

At present, BP has no plan to present this draft as a full-fledged public project, as other outlets have done with similar prompts in the past. However, the participants have taken it admirably seriously, and by going four rounds, we’ve pushed the concept further than most of those past efforts. It’s been eye-opening, because it’s forced us all to spend some time mulling the merits of a wide swath of candidates, and we’ve continued past the point at which obvious names ran out.

 

Here are the Twins who have been taken so far, with less than half of one round remaining in the draft:

• José Berríos, 41st
• Jorge Polanco, 79th
• Mitch Garver, 96th
• Royce Lewis, 100th
• Byron Buxton, 104th

Obviously, in addition to those five players, the team has a handful of clear candidates to go in the 15 picks which remain as of this writing: Max Kepler, Luis Arráez, Miguel Sanó, Alex Kirilloff, Trevor Larnach, and Jordan Balazovic. Even if none of them are selected, though, the Twins will have been more than proportionally represented in the draft, overall, at least from a quantity perspective.

 

Still, it’s interesting to note that no Twin cracked the top 30 (the threshold above which, ostensibly, a player is necessarily the envy of every team in the league to whom they don’t belong), and that only Berríos even fit into the top two rounds. Nor is that an especially controversial way for things to break down.

 

A big believer in Lewis could have pushed him up the draft board. He certainly has a chance, in a few years, to make the group’s collective valuation of him look too conservative. For now, however, his star is a bit dimmed by the struggles he experienced at the plate in 2019, and by scouting reports that suggest there are tangible, persistent reasons for those problems. I’m particularly bullish on Kepler, and would have taken him before Buxton, let alone prospects Cristian Pache and Dylan Carlson, all of whom have been selected in the fourth round. Given his years of experience and demonstrated limitations in terms of hitting for average, though, it’s easy to see why he’s slipped down the board.

 

Could Berríos have been taken higher? There’s a strong case to be made that he’s better (and of a sufficiently similar age and ceiling) to have gone above both Mike Soroka and Frankie Montas, the two hurlers taken just ahead of him in the second round. On the other hand, the two starters taken just after him (Shane Bieber and Jacob deGrom) are both much more accomplished than Berríos at this point, and seem to have plenty of miles left in their arms.

 

One theme that pervaded the draft was that, without existing contracts as anchors and tiebreakers, large differences emerged between participants in terms of valuing pitchers. That was true not only with regard to weighing hitters against pitchers, but with regard to what drafters were looking for in the pitchers they did take.

 

In general, the exercise made clear the extent to which the Twins’ chances in the foreseeable future hinge on depth, rather than star power. The Indians had two players drafted ahead of Berríos, and one (Bieber) immediately after him. The White Sox also clustered three draftees into the top 46 picks, and after them, had two additional players plucked before Polanco got the Twins back onto the board.

 

It was clear, even as last season unfolded, that the Twins’ success was designed to be considerably less sexy than that of their divisional rivals. Their model centers on a unified offensive approach, an overhauled player development system, and betting wisely on veterans, rather than on finding and building around individual superstars. That’s wise; baseball generally rewards that approach.

 

That doesn’t mean it’s an easy way to do things. The Dodgers had five players taken within the top 32 picks in this draft. The defending champion Nationals had four of the top 50, not counting Anthony Rendon, who just departed after the championship, nor Bryce Harper, who departed one year earlier. Superstars give teams with great processes and protocols in place a greater margin for error, and margin for error matters a great deal in baseball.

 

That’s why the Twins were smart to pony up for the star power of Josh Donaldson this winter. They exposed themselves to some risk—even without his fresh contract to consider, Donaldson hasn’t been taken in the franchise player draft, because of his age and injury history—but made themselves less reliant on continued good luck in developing homegrown players into stars. Now, as this draft underscores, they need to keep trusting those processes, and hope that one of those players (Lewis, of course, being the obvious candidate) can become the centerpiece they currently lack.

 

MORE FROM TWINS DAILY

— Latest Twins coverage from our writers

— Recent Twins discussion in our forums

— Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email

 

Click here to view the article

[mikelink45]

Now try a draft for a one year team - a team you want to take you to the top right away, no matter what age, what contract.  Then Donaldson and Cruz become valuable and give us star power.  The rookies and the minor leaguers lose their projection and must have immediate value or they fall off the list.  Or do a draft of 30 and over. 

 

This is a fun exercise and obviously has me thinking about players and their value.

[dbminn]

Nice article. My only comment about the BP draft is the absence of Kepler in the top 100. He was a top 30 position player last year. He's an excellent defender, durable and very athletic. I'd take him over all of the listed Twins except Berrios.

[Shaitan]

Meh. "Star power" is about marketing, not baseball. I'd rather have a team of above-average players working well as a team than a few celebrities hawking Nike products.

[Trov]

The portion about pitching was interesting to me, and sparked in my mind the debate on starting pitching these days, and what value they seriously add to a team, versus other players. I have always been pitching and defense guy for winning, and still believe that.  However, I also feel the value of a starting pitcher has dropped a ton and they are not worth nearly as much in terms of contracts as they used to.

 

If you go back to the era of 3 man rotations where pitchers would go 9 innings most games they had huge value if you had a top pitcher.  As you go to 4 man rotations with still 9 innings each pitcher lost a little value but still have value.  Then as you go to 5 man rotations with some 9 inning games and "work horse" pitchers going over 200 innings less value.  Now, you have 5 man rotations, some with only a few "starters" and they will go 6 innings, 7 if lucky and the 9 inning game is something to write about.

 

This shifts great value to bullpens from the starters.  I am not trying to argue a top starter is not important and when you can get one they have great value as they will take work load from bullpen for other games.  However, I think it has greatly skewed the pitching spectrum.  I think you have top 10% starters that can go 7 plus innings a start and dominate giving your team a chance to win, but still only impacting a small portion of a team overall season.  

 

If no extra inning or rain shorted games, there will be 1,458 innings in a normal season.  Last season only 15 pitchers got to 200 innings with top being 223. Texas and Houston had 2 such pitchers which means 17 teams did not even have 1 pitcher to throw 200 innings.  200 innings means 1/7 of a season, about.  However, of the top 5 paid players in 2019 4 were pitchers.  They impacted about 1/7 of the whole season for their team but got paid much more than their impact would suggest.  Unless, you look at impact in playoffs.  

 

When you look at how a dominate pitcher can shut down teams and impact a very large amount of the playoffs, specifically when you reduce rotation to 3 or 4 depending on off days.  Then they can have a huge impact.  So even though, they have lower impact in a full 162 game season, their impact adjusts for playoffs to be much larger impact.  Then they earn their money.  Also, as stated the top tier starters will have much larger impact.  However, the mid-level starters that used to get paid large amounts for basically replacement ball, they should start to see money drop and more investment in either top pitchers, or top pen guys that are eating the innings the starters used to do.

[SkyBlueWaters]

 

I'd rather have a team of above-average players working well as a team 

 

Agreed. But we're okay if a few of those above-average players are named Oliva, Carew, Puckett or Morneau, yeah? (A few others come to mind, as well, but I kept it brief.)

[Minny505]

I gotta admit, I am shocked that Bieber was taken so low for a pitcher. I would think him solidly in the top 10 pitchers for the next decade, maybe even as high as #3.

 

I took him in the MLB decade contest as the player to win the most Cy Young awards, so you can see where I stand on him.

 

And in an effort to be objective, I would also think Clevinger gets taken in front of Berrios. I strongly believe that the Indians have the four best players in the AL Central right now.

 

This is not to say Berrios should not be in the top 10 pitchers taken as well, just that I think he is probably in the 8-10 range while Bieber is in the 3-5 range and Clevinger is in the 6-8 range. 

And also, I hope that I am wrong. Dead wrong. 

[mikelink45]

 

The portion about pitching was interesting to me, and sparked in my mind the debate on starting pitching these days, and what value they seriously add to a team, versus other players. I have always been pitching and defense guy for winning, and still believe that.  However, I also feel the value of a starting pitcher has dropped a ton and they are not worth nearly as much in terms of contracts as they used to.

 

If you go back to the era of 3 man rotations where pitchers would go 9 innings most games they had huge value if you had a top pitcher.  As you go to 4 man rotations with still 9 innings each pitcher lost a little value but still have value.  Then as you go to 5 man rotations with some 9 inning games and "work horse" pitchers going over 200 innings less value.  Now, you have 5 man rotations, some with only a few "starters" and they will go 6 innings, 7 if lucky and the 9 inning game is something to write about.

 

This shifts great value to bullpens from the starters.  I am not trying to argue a top starter is not important and when you can get one they have great value as they will take work load from bullpen for other games.  However, I think it has greatly skewed the pitching spectrum.  I think you have top 10% starters that can go 7 plus innings a start and dominate giving your team a chance to win, but still only impacting a small portion of a team overall season.  

 

If no extra inning or rain shorted games, there will be 1,458 innings in a normal season.  Last season only 15 pitchers got to 200 innings with top being 223. Texas and Houston had 2 such pitchers which means 17 teams did not even have 1 pitcher to throw 200 innings.  200 innings means 1/7 of a season, about.  However, of the top 5 paid players in 2019 4 were pitchers.  They impacted about 1/7 of the whole season for their team but got paid much more than their impact would suggest.  Unless, you look at impact in playoffs.  

 

When you look at how a dominate pitcher can shut down teams and impact a very large amount of the playoffs, specifically when you reduce rotation to 3 or 4 depending on off days.  Then they can have a huge impact.  So even though, they have lower impact in a full 162 game season, their impact adjusts for playoffs to be much larger impact.  Then they earn their money.  Also, as stated the top tier starters will have much larger impact.  However, the mid-level starters that used to get paid large amounts for basically replacement ball, they should start to see money drop and more investment in either top pitchers, or top pen guys that are eating the innings the starters used to do.

"Ryan, 69, has been outspoken against the idea that pitch counts and innings limits are a deterrent to injuries. “I’m not a doctor and I’m not a scientist. All I am is a guy who threw over 5,000 innings,’’ he said. “I know what pitchers go through and I know what it takes to do that and I real ly believe we don’t condition our pitchers for what they are asked to do. And because of that, I think we increase our chances of injury on them.

“I believe when an organization puts those kind of random restrictions on their pitching staff, they don’t take advantage and utilize the talent that they have. I think everybody has a pitch limit, but I think also you can tell when a guy’s reached his pitch limit by watching him. That’s what pitching coaches used to do. Now they look at the number of pitches and at around 100, they get somebody up and that pitcher comes out of the game no matter whether he’s having an exceptionally good game or if he struggled. Obviously, they put pitch limits to try to protect people, but I think it’s worked just the opposite.’’

Ryan is fifth on the all-time list of innings pitched with 5,386. Asked if his record seven no-hitters would have occurred under the current climate of safeguards, Ryan said: “I used to average 150 to 160 pitches a game because of the nature of pitcher I was. Would it have impacted my effectiveness? Yes. I think it probably would.’’

 

"Cardinals broadcaster Tim McCarver, who caught Hall of Fame pitchers Bob Gibson and Steve Carlton, has railed against pitch counts.

“How can people be so sure it’s the same for Don Drysdale and Chris Short?’’ he said. “How do people throw these numbers around like it’s wisdom? It’s not wisdom, it’s foolish. Who’s to say it’s 120 pitches, 140 pitches. Juan Marichal in 1963 in that famous game against Warren Spahn threw pitches’’ in 16 innings."

 

Most career innings pitched, with seasons played in parentheses

1.Cy Young (22)7,356.0

2.Pud Galvin (15)6,003.1

3.Walter Johnson (21)5,914.1

4.Phil Niekro (24)5,404.0

5.Nolan Ryan (27)5,386.0

6.Gaylord Perry (22)5,350.0

7.Don Sutton (23)5,282.1

8.Warren Spahn (21)5,243.2

9.Steve Carlton (24)5,217.2

10.Grover Alexander (20)5,190.0

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/IP_leagues.shtml The record of the annual most innings pitched really calls to question the durability of pitchers and todays theory on limited innings. 

[Trov]

 

"Ryan, 69, has been outspoken against the idea that pitch counts and innings limits are a deterrent to injuries. “I’m not a doctor and I’m not a scientist. All I am is a guy who threw over 5,000 innings,’’ he said. “I know what pitchers go through and I know what it takes to do that and I real ly believe we don’t condition our pitchers for what they are asked to do. And because of that, I think we increase our chances of injury on them.

“I believe when an organization puts those kind of random restrictions on their pitching staff, they don’t take advantage and utilize the talent that they have. I think everybody has a pitch limit, but I think also you can tell when a guy’s reached his pitch limit by watching him. That’s what pitching coaches used to do. Now they look at the number of pitches and at around 100, they get somebody up and that pitcher comes out of the game no matter whether he’s having an exceptionally good game or if he struggled. Obviously, they put pitch limits to try to protect people, but I think it’s worked just the opposite.’’

Ryan is fifth on the all-time list of innings pitched with 5,386. Asked if his record seven no-hitters would have occurred under the current climate of safeguards, Ryan said: “I used to average 150 to 160 pitches a game because of the nature of pitcher I was. Would it have impacted my effectiveness? Yes. I think it probably would.’’

 

"Cardinals broadcaster Tim McCarver, who caught Hall of Fame pitchers Bob Gibson and Steve Carlton, has railed against pitch counts.

“How can people be so sure it’s the same for Don Drysdale and Chris Short?’’ he said. “How do people throw these numbers around like it’s wisdom? It’s not wisdom, it’s foolish. Who’s to say it’s 120 pitches, 140 pitches. Juan Marichal in 1963 in that famous game against Warren Spahn threw pitches’’ in 16 innings."

 

Most career innings pitched, with seasons played in parentheses

1.Cy Young (22)7,356.0

2.Pud Galvin (15)6,003.1

3.Walter Johnson (21)5,914.1

4.Phil Niekro (24)5,404.0

5.Nolan Ryan (27)5,386.0

6.Gaylord Perry (22)5,350.0

7.Don Sutton (23)5,282.1

8.Warren Spahn (21)5,243.2

9.Steve Carlton (24)5,217.2

10.Grover Alexander (20)5,190.0

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/IP_leagues.shtml The record of the annual most innings pitched really calls to question the durability of pitchers and todays theory on limited innings. 

Just to play devils advocate, it is what I do, these guys were the outliers of the spectrum of pitching.  Ryan one of the most, as he had crazy high velocity for his time.  So to point to a few guys that manged to not follow the norm of the bell curve is not the most effective way to point to pitch count having a counter to intended.  That being said, clearly some can be outside the norm and pitch more, but how do you figure that out without doing it?  Then if you are wrong you risk injuries. 

 

I believe the increased velocity is what leads to more injuries than anything these days.  I am no doctor, have taken some classes on sports injuries, but I strongly believe that throwing as hard as most do now a days will lead to more injuries because of the strain in the elbow.  I remember watching Zumia tear the tip of his elbow right off from how hard he threw, never to return again. 

 

I strongly believe in the past the great pitchers would pitch well, hitting spots and working around the zone keeping hitters off balanced, changing speeds even with their fastball.  This would mean they were not throwing 100% all game long.  Now I think pitchers have to throw 100% while out there because if they lose some velo they lose prospect rankings and teams look at that for contract and expected regression.  If velo drops then it is assumed their effectiveness will drop so money drops.  Players know this so they throw max all the time. 

 

I also feel many pitchers growing up are not taught that legs drive velocity more than arms.  The arm is just what releases the ball, but the legs and core is what gets you the kinetic energy to run through the arm.  It seems to many people, who have not studied it, counter to logic.  However, the science is there that building up leg and core strength will help so much more than arm and elbow strength.  This needs to get passed down to little league coaches and up to high school coaches.  Teach the kids young how to use legs and core better.  This will reduce the stress on the arm over all the years.  

[mikelink45]

 

Just to play devils advocate, it is what I do, these guys were the outliers of the spectrum of pitching.  Ryan one of the most, as he had crazy high velocity for his time.  So to point to a few guys that manged to not follow the norm of the bell curve is not the most effective way to point to pitch count having a counter to intended.  That being said, clearly some can be outside the norm and pitch more, but how do you figure that out without doing it?  Then if you are wrong you risk injuries. 

 

I believe the increased velocity is what leads to more injuries than anything these days.  I am no doctor, have taken some classes on sports injuries, but I strongly believe that throwing as hard as most do now a days will lead to more injuries because of the strain in the elbow.  I remember watching Zumia tear the tip of his elbow right off from how hard he threw, never to return again. 

 

I strongly believe in the past the great pitchers would pitch well, hitting spots and working around the zone keeping hitters off balanced, changing speeds even with their fastball.  This would mean they were not throwing 100% all game long.  Now I think pitchers have to throw 100% while out there because if they lose some velo they lose prospect rankings and teams look at that for contract and expected regression.  If velo drops then it is assumed their effectiveness will drop so money drops.  Players know this so they throw max all the time. 

 

I also feel many pitchers growing up are not taught that legs drive velocity more than arms.  The arm is just what releases the ball, but the legs and core is what gets you the kinetic energy to run through the arm.  It seems to many people, who have not studied it, counter to logic.  However, the science is there that building up leg and core strength will help so much more than arm and elbow strength.  This needs to get passed down to little league coaches and up to high school coaches.  Teach the kids young how to use legs and core better.  This will reduce the stress on the arm over all the years.  

These might be the outliers, but what is interesting to me is that the other pitchers routinely threw 150 - 200 innings, what we now consider a full load.  For example - 1965 Twins.  Mudcat Grant pitched 274 innings and Jim Kaat 264.  The Other two starters were 167, 154.

 

The next year Kaat threw 304 innings, Grant had 249, Perry 184, Boswell 169.

 

In 1967 Dean Chance threw 283 innings, Kaat 263, Merritt 227, Boswell 222

 

In 2019 Berrios threw 200, Perez 165, Gibson 160, Odorizzi 159, Pineda 146 - a striking difference with our own old timers - not the outliers like you called my examples. 

[Trov]

 

These might be the outliers, but what is interesting to me is that the other pitchers routinely threw 150 - 200 innings, what we now consider a full load.  For example - 1965 Twins.  Mudcat Grant pitched 274 innings and Jim Kaat 264.  The Other two starters were 167, 154.

 

The next year Kaat threw 304 innings, Grant had 249, Perry 184, Boswell 169.

 

In 1967 Dean Chance threw 283 innings, Kaat 263, Merritt 227, Boswell 222

 

In 2019 Berrios threw 200, Perez 165, Gibson 160, Odorizzi 159, Pineda 146 - a striking difference with our own old timers - not the outliers like you called my examples. 

The outliers I was more referring to was the more modern guys like Ryan, who had the velocity that is sought now a days and still threw a ton.  I was also more referring them to the outliers as they could handle the load that was asked of them, but you do not take too much note of the guys that could not, because they could not.  However, in the recent 30 years we tend to try to point to instances were an injury altered a career.  Also, prior to tommy john, when someone tore their UCL career over and we never would hear much about work load ect.  So working off of a skewed data set will skew it.  

 

I agree each team had work horses that would pitch much more than what players now are asked.  Back then velocity was much lower too.  I remember even as not so long as early 2000's when 95 was considered high velocity and the very very rare would throw much more than that.  Now, 95 is close to league average.  90 was the goal and if you could top that great, if not you better have movement.  

 

I totally support increasing innings pitched and getting pitchers ready for that.  I was never a fan of holding guys to strict pitch and inning counts in minors, only to then expect they can throw 100 plus pitches and many innings in MLB.  They never were asked to do that before, so why would they be successful now?  I believe many pitchers could throw more per start and more innings per season.  Not every pitch is equal wear and tear on arm.  

 

So where along the line someone said pitch count is what leads to injuries, maybe they had the data to back it up or not.  So teams decided they did not want big injuries to their star pitchers and were willing to let them pitch less per start to increase chance they would start more.  They balance the hope of more starts to reduce risk of major injury.  You cannot weed out the ones that will have the injuries as well, and you do not get the full possible player either.  I am a fan of going back to 9 inning starts and let them throw over 100 pitches.  Now though teams look less at pitches but times through order regardless of pitches.