Murphy: Inteview with Terry Ryan

[twinsnorth49]

This is a ridiculous game to play.

 

How about:

Pitcher A: 3.00 ERA 3 innings

Pitcher B: 3.20 ERA, 230 innings

 

or

 

Pitcher A: 5.30 ERA, 120 innings, 110 Ks, 80 BBs

Pitcher B: 3.25 ERA, 125 innings, 96 Ks, 21 BBs

 

You can prove a whole lot of nothing throwing out random stats.

 

Just oversimplifying your oversimplification.

[IdahoPilgrim]

I think what this all comes down to is what you expect from your starting pitchers.

 

Do we expect our pitchers to be dominant and able to shut teams down and virtually win games on their own? Or do we want pitchers who can just keep the game close, who can eat up innings, and give the offense a chance to win the game by scoring runs?

 

Obviously, it depends on what the rest of the team looks like. If you have confidence in your offensive capabilities, you are more willing to accept a rotation of #3 & #4 starters. If you don't have confidence in your ability to produce runs, you are more likely to demand/need better starting pitching to compensate. My guess is that Twins feel good enough about their offense that a rotation of dependable if unspectacular starters is OK for them. Time will tell if we got that (or if their analysis of offensive capability is accurate).

 

Obviously, you'd like to have both good pitching and good hitting. Doesn't happen that often in real life, though. When it does, it usually means World Series.

[bird]

Sounds better than I hope he has an above average obp+ with a solid iso power rating. The article wasn't for twins daily but a newspaper and since only gpas read newspapers with there morning viagra and oj, using saber stats would have been a bad idea.

 

Hey, Twerp! I resemble that!

[TheLeviathan]

IDo we expect our pitchers to be dominant and able to shut teams down and virtually win games on their own? Or do we want pitchers who can just keep the game close, who can eat up innings, and give the offense a chance to win the game by scoring runs.

 

You know what good teams do? A little of both. I think the Twins have conditioned us in some very strange ways about how a team can be assembled. Even then, innings eaters still have to minimize the runs they give up or you won't want them out there eating innings since they aren't "keeping you in the game".

[Nick Nelson]

Ok, serious question. Is pitching a lot of innings is a predictor of being durable and pitching a lot of innings in the future?

 

It's a better predictor than not pitching a lot of innings.

 

But I think you're getting at an important point that I've preached often. A pitcher is only injury-prone until he's not, and vice versa. Carl Pavano's a fine example -- he's gone back and forth about four times in his career. Pitchers with a relatively clean bill of health suffer major injuries all the time, it's the name of the game.

[drjim]

Just oversimplifying your oversimplification.

 

So saying IP is the most important stat is an oversimplification? I would disagree with that interpretation.

[drjim]

They don't have to be random. These two guys are sitting immediately next to one another when you align the 2012 season by IP:

 

Pitcher A: 191.2 IP, 5.07 ERA, 47/147 BB/SO

Pitcher B: 191.1 IP, 3.90 ERA, 89/221 BB/SO

 

What does IP tell you there? And what is the defining stat that makes you like pitcher B compared to pitcher A?

 

It's ERA. If you're going to glom onto one pitching stat (not including advanced metrics), ERA is the obvious choice. Innings Pitches tells you nothing about quality of pitcher unless you get to the far end of the spectrum (if a guy throws 230+ IP, you know he was at least an effective pitcher, if not a great one). Hanging on to this notion that IP is the most important pitching stat is ridiculous. Just give it up.

 

Besides, declaring one statistic the best is a silly notion in the first place. Why would anyone in their right mind choose one statistic when you have hundreds available to you?

 

I said IP was the most important. I stand by that. But I also thought I was pretty clear that it was far from the only stat or a be-all end-all stat. To look solely at IP would be silly, just like it would be silly to look at any one stat to determine effectiveness. I would assume this is self-evident. I would put ERA second.

[Alex]

It's a better predictor than not pitching a lot of innings.

 

But I think you're getting at an important point that I've preached often. A pitcher is only injury-prone until he's not, and vice versa. Carl Pavano's a fine example -- he's gone back and forth about four times in his career. Pitchers with a relatively clean bill of health suffer major injuries all the time, it's the name of the game.

 

Heh, I suppose that's true, that not pitching a lot of innings probably means that, for whatever reason (injury or performance) a pitcher won't likely pitch "a lot" in the future (whatever that number means), but it does seem like a guy is durable until he isn't as you point out.

[Alex]

I said IP was the most important. I stand by that. But I also thought I was pretty clear that it was far from the only stat or a be-all end-all stat. To look solely at IP would be silly, just like it would be silly to look at any one stat to determine effectiveness. I would assume this is self-evident. I would put ERA second.

 

I'd encourage you to go to Fangraphs here: Major League Leaderboards » 2012 » Pitchers » Dashboard | FanGraphs Baseball

 

You can play around with what stat you'd like to rank pitchers by, WAR, ERA, IP, xFIP, whatever.

 

It's interesting to note, and not surprising that IP will correlate with what most of us consider good pitchers and bad pitchers at the extreme ends of the spectrum. However, for a massive number of pitchers, it doesn't correlate at all. Jarrod Hudson had a 3.47 ERA but only threw 187 IP, putting him in the bottom 3rd of the majors of qualified pitchers in IP. There are a ton of pitchers like this: Samardzjja, Lynn, Hellickson, Moore, Hudson...

 

How can IP be the most important stat if there are pitchers like this in the bottom of the league in IP? Meanwhile Clayton Richard and Justin Masterson threw over 200 IP. I'd take any of the pitchers I named above over them for last season's performance. How can that be considered if IP is the most important stat?

[mnfanforlife]

They don't have to be random. These two guys are sitting immediately next to one another when you align the 2012 season by IP:

 

Pitcher A: 191.2 IP, 5.07 ERA, 47/147 BB/SO

Pitcher B: 191.1 IP, 3.90 ERA, 89/221 BB/SO

 

What does IP tell you there? And what is the defining stat that makes you like pitcher B compared to pitcher A?

 

It's ERA. If you're going to glom onto one pitching stat (not including advanced metrics), ERA is the obvious choice. Innings Pitches tells you nothing about quality of pitcher unless you get to the far end of the spectrum (if a guy throws 230+ IP, you know he was at least an effective pitcher, if not a great one). Hanging on to this notion that IP is the most important pitching stat is ridiculous. Just give it up.

 

Besides, declaring one statistic the best is a silly notion in the first place. Why would anyone in their right mind choose one statistic when you have hundreds available to you?

 

This is a great post. I mirrored your thoughts about ERA here last fall. I agree that we should not be closed-minded and focus on one stat for any player. But, for pitchers, ERA would be the one to separate those with equal IP

 

"I think about baseball a lot, and ERA is the MOST important stat for a pitcher in my opinion. Your starter's ERA is what you're facing, on average, as an offense (until or if the starter exits, obviously)." - me.

[Nick Nelson]

Jarrod (Parker) had a 3.47 ERA but only threw 187 IP, putting him in the bottom 3rd of the majors of qualified pitchers in IP. There are a ton of pitchers like this: Samardzjja, Lynn, Hellickson, Moore, Hudson...

 

How can IP be the most important stat if there are pitchers like this in the bottom of the league in IP?

Here's the thing: your baseline is "qualified starters," which in itself denotes an IP milestone. I think it's safe to say the entire group of "qualified starters" is much, much better than non-qualified starters, because in order to qualify you need to be healthy and effective enough to get there. Last year the Twins had only one starter reach the 162-inning qualifying mark: Scott Diamond. Sounds about right.

 

I think drjim is right. If I had to use one single statistic as a shorthand measure, innings pitched would probably be the one.

[LaBombo]

If you had weak pitching depth, would you rather have 190 ip of 4.35 era or 130 ip of 3.35 era? I would probably take the first option, even though in many ways he is probably a lesser pitcher.

 

I think that most people would agree that the Twins had weak starting pitching depth in 2012. If their only concern in choosing between your options was to prevent runs, it should be a no-brainer even for them.

 

In order to match the 190 IP horse (Correia?), all the Twins would have to do to supplement 130 IP man's inning deficit is find 60 innings from a starter with an ERA lower than 6.55. Six point five freaking five.

 

Let's get crazy and set the bar even higher. What about a lights-out replacement starter with an ERA of 6.00 or lower in at least 60 IP? Take away the top five pitchers on the Twins games started list, and you still find five guys who were at least that good, and a sixth on pace to do so when the season ended.

 

In other words, if the Twins have a half-dozen of those guys just waiting to be dug out of the couch cushions, then any team in baseball could replace those 60 innings from a talent standpoint and get better results than 190 IP man's. There are other factors (possible 40 man roster issues, whether the 60 inning guy is a swing man more valued as a reliever, like Duensing, etc), but there are intangibles on both sides.

 

There's a certainly a place on most teams for a guy like the generic 190/4.35 one in your comparison, especially if he sustains that year after year. But starters with 3.35 ERA's are usually pretty damn good, even when they throw only 130 innings.

[LaBombo]

Here's the thing: your baseline is "qualified starters," which in itself denotes an IP milestone. I think it's safe to say the entire group of "qualified starters" is much, much better than non-qualified starters, because in order to qualify you need to be healthy and effective enough to get there. Last year the Twins had only one starter reach the 162-inning qualifying mark: Scott Diamond. Sounds about right.

 

I think drjim is right. If I had to use one single statistic as a shorthand measure, innings pitched would probably be the one.

 

This is getting crazy. First of all, the argument about the value of any given one-stat yardstick for almost anything in baseball is sort of pointless, given the fact that any casual fan can sort players according to multiple metrics in a matter of seconds.

 

Second, shorthand measure of what? Yes, major league pitchers tend to be better than minor league ones. So you're saying that the primary value of innings pitched as a performance, as opposed to predictive, stat is that it tells us what we already know, but in statistical shorthand? Also, when minor leaguers are called up, a combination of any decent rate stat and the situation (emerging phenom or AAAA guy called up when CY candidate goes on DL) usually tells us more than a simple IP sort.

 

Third, in the spirit that the original argument was obviously intended (sorting major league pitchers), all IP does in most cases is what Alex said (including your Twins staff example) which is to do a rough separation of the very best and very worst starters or rotations in baseball from the majority in the vast middle.

 

In other words, IP doesn't look very useful for evaluation unless you construct some sort of abstract, hypothetical 'desert island, message in a bottle after each season, rank all minor and major league starters by one stat and guess who's good or not' thing.

 

Thank God, one more day til pitchers and catchers. Then we can freak out about how serious Gardenhire is in LEN3's interview saying that he really loves how Blackburn is throwing the baseball so far.

[FrodaddyG]

Then we can freak out about how serious Gardenhire is in LEN3's interview saying that he really loves how Blackburn is throwing the baseball so far.

Man, I hope that's some kind of trolling Gardy was doing, seeing as Blackie won't be picking up a baseball until late February at the earliest.

[TheLeviathan]

One stat: Qualified ERA leaders. You know you are only getting pitchers who pitched a significant portion of the season and you know at least generally how effective they were. It's not a sexy stat, but if you're stuck on this "one stat to rule them all" idea that seems to be the best compromise.

 

Don't forget, this conversation started with drjim trying to give some credence to why the Twins promote durability over talent. I would suggest that the same problems in picking only one stat to evaluate on is precisely the same problem influencing the Twins ability to draft and develop good to great starting pitching: Too stuck on one thing.

[drjim]

One stat: Qualified ERA leaders. You know you are only getting pitchers who pitched a significant portion of the season and you know at least generally how effective they were. It's not a sexy stat, but if you're stuck on this "one stat to rule them all" idea that seems to be the best compromise.

 

Don't forget, this conversation started with drjim trying to give some credence to why the Twins promote durability over talent. I would suggest that the same problems in picking only one stat to evaluate on is precisely the same problem influencing the Twins ability to draft and develop good to great starting pitching: Too stuck on one thing.

 

I think you are quite mistaken on both these points. No one has ever suggested using solely one stat and I have never promoted any attribute in a pitcher over talent (though I would acknowledge talent is of less value if a starter can't log innings to back it up).

[LaBombo]

Man, I hope that's some kind of trolling Gardy was doing, seeing as Blackie won't be picking up a baseball until late February at the earliest.

 

Hey, you got me there. But I love that you think that a hypothetical Gardy observation like that, even given 'Blackie's' absence, would be way out of line with the other bombs of crazy that randomly issue forth from his sunflower seed hole.

[FrodaddyG]

I love that you think that a hypothetical Gardy observation like that would be way out of line with the other outbursts of crazy that randomly emanate from his sunflower seed hole.

Well, if he were actually talking about how a guy in a cast is throwing, then yeah, that's a little beyond the realm of Gardy's usual random, crazy spouting from the mouth.

[Badsmerf]

I just read this entire ****ing thread. Surprisingly, it was fun to read the back-and-forth about this topic (which BTW was a complete hijacking). I'm in a different boat. I just don't think you can say one statistic for a pitcher is the most important. There are too many variables and if you want one all-encompassing stat, I personally like xFIP. I take the Correia signing as a result of the complete implosion of the starting pitching last season. If the Twins would have got Marcum or another SP that actually had talent it wouldn't look as bad. My problem is they didn't get one of those type of players, not that they signed a guy they felt can give them around 200 mediocre innings (which yes, are valuable to any team).

 

I didn't find Ryan to be very frontal about anything in this article really. His answers are still pretty vague just a little more honest I guess. I find it odd that he is frustrated about getting to the playoffs so often without reaching a WS yet he has kept Gardy around all this time. I don't feel he is as plugged in as he portrays. The Twins have a huge problem identifying free agent SP and drafting high quality SP. Until these two things can I don't feel this team will win.

[Alex]

Here's the thing: your baseline is "qualified starters," which in itself denotes an IP milestone. I think it's safe to say the entire group of "qualified starters" is much, much better than non-qualified starters, because in order to qualify you need to be healthy and effective enough to get there. Last year the Twins had only one starter reach the 162-inning qualifying mark: Scott Diamond. Sounds about right.

 

I think drjim is right. If I had to use one single statistic as a shorthand measure, innings pitched would probably be the one.

 

Right, I'm picking pitchers that all pitched a qualified number of innings. There are 88 of them. Their range of value and amount success is widely varying and does not really correlate to IP (except at the fringes, and there are even exceptions at the top end: Clayton Richards). Thus, how could it be the most important statistic when it doesn't even relate to how successful a pitcher was in THAT season?

 

Cherry picking Diamond was an interesting choice. Diamond ranked 80th in IP, or the bottom 10%. Would you say 90% of the pitchers on the list were better than he was?

 

Picking any other stat gives us a much better picture of his actual value and success. In WAR he ranked 45th. In ERA, he ranked 31st, xFIP: 42nd, K/9 86th, BB/9 4th, HR/9: 31st. So, his IP was only close in ranking him as a pitcher to his K/9, but everything else he was in the top half.

 

So, if IP is actually the worst at showing you what kind of year he had, how can IP be the most important stat?

 

I'd never advocate picking one stat, and you obviously have to consider IP when looking at stats to make sure they aren't flukes or small sample sizes, the same way you would with PA for hitters, as it gives context, but that is all. Again, except for the edges (Verlander, etc..), but it's a ridiculous stat to call the most important.

[TheLeviathan]

I think you are quite mistaken on both these points. No one has ever suggested using solely one stat and I have never promoted any attribute in a pitcher over talent (though I would acknowledge talent is of less value if a starter can't log innings to back it up).

 

My point still stands, even if my characterization of your position wasn't accurate. I get that you're not saying it's the only stat you'd use, just that if you had to pick one. But the point remains the same, if you are highlighting one stat as the best or first in importance, you are too stuck on one thing. Qualified ERA both includes people who have pitched only a significant amount of innings and allows you to rank their effectiveness to some degree. IP completely leaves performance to guess-work.

 

I would argue the number of innings one pitches is only a positive if they weren't awful while they were out there. The Twins got 300 IP out of Liriano, Blackburn, and Duensing last year. I do not consider those "valuable" contributions because by and large, they were only filling space. Not contributing to the team's success. You said it yourself - runs and outs. Why you're choosing a stat that only counts one of those things is baffling to me when there are others that do both.

[drjim]

My point still stands, even if my characterization of your position wasn't accurate. I get that you're not saying it's the only stat you'd use, just that if you had to pick one. But the point remains the same, if you are highlighting one stat as the best or first in importance, you are too stuck on one thing. Qualified ERA both includes people who have pitched only a significant amount of innings and allows you to rank their effectiveness to some degree. IP completely leaves performance to guess-work.

 

I would argue the number of innings one pitches is only a positive if they weren't awful while they were out there. The Twins got 300 IP out of Liriano, Blackburn, and Duensing last year. I do not consider those "valuable" contributions because by and large, they were only filling space. Not contributing to the team's success. You said it yourself - runs and outs. Why you're choosing a stat that only counts one of those things is baffling to me when there are others that do both.

 

But the point is that I would never pick or highlight only one stat when trying to evaluate a pitcher's performance. That would be ridiculous.

 

Qualified ERA is fine but it's two stats. I wouldn't say IP of those with ERAs under 3 is the most important stat for a starting pitcher.

[TheLeviathan]

But the point is that I would never pick or highlight only one stat when trying to evaluate a pitcher's performance. That would be ridiculous.

 

Qualified ERA is fine but it's two stats. I wouldn't say IP of those with ERAs under 3 is the most important stat for a starting pitcher.

 

The whole thing is ridiculous. Let's back up. You said that IP is "by far" the "single most important stat" in, I presume, an attempt to help defend the idea that durability is most important. You have continued to defend it as the best stat to evaluate pitchers. What is the purpose of this exercise exactly? You've stripped it down to the idea that you can't look at the numbers that go into a stat's calculation, you can't distinguish qualified from unqualified, but you can make assumptions about what IP meant for performance. At some point...you do realize how silly this is right? I mean, what value does your initial point have if you have to go to these lengths to make it true?

[old nurse]

Taken over a period of time IP is an indication of a pretty darn good pitcher. Over the last three years, the 43 pitchers who have pitched 550 innings over that time are all quality pitchers. Masterson and a couple others could be debateable as quality, When you drop the IP on fangraphs to 450 innings, the list starts looking a lot worse.

[Alex]

Taken over a period of time IP is an indication of a pretty darn good pitcher. Over the last three years, the 43 pitchers who have pitched 550 innings over that time are all quality pitchers. Masterson and a couple others could be debateable as quality, When you drop the IP on fangraphs to 450 innings, the list starts looking a lot worse.

 

 

Sure but you've narrowed your field considerably, 43 pitchers wouldn't give every team in the league two starters. Additionally, it completely ignores young pitchers who are better than those. So again, it really tells us nothing about most pitchers in the league.

[drjim]

The whole thing is ridiculous. Let's back up. You said that IP is "by far" the "single most important stat" in, I presume, an attempt to help defend the idea that durability is most important. You have continued to defend it as the best stat to evaluate pitchers. What is the purpose of this exercise exactly? You've stripped it down to the idea that you can't look at the numbers that go into a stat's calculation, you can't distinguish qualified from unqualified, but you can make assumptions about what IP meant for performance. At some point...you do realize how silly this is right? I mean, what value does your initial point have if you have to go to these lengths to make it true?

 

To be honest I don't even remember the context of the original posting, but I don't think I would ever endorse the idea that durability is the most important. I would always take talent. I see IP as a function of both.

 

I guess I saw this exercise as making a statement, having some people agree and having many other people raise questions, objections or alternatives to which I tried to respond. I don't especially care if people agree with me initial statement but I found it to be an interesting discussion on pitching and value.

 

Regarding the lengths I went to to defend my point, I feel people went to similar lengths to try and disprove it so I felt they deserved a response in kind. Isn't that kind of the point of a discussion board (at least when we aren't trolling, engaging in ad hominen attacks or inciting flame wars with other)?

[edavis0308]

Taken over a period of time IP is an indication of a pretty darn good pitcher. Over the last three years, the 43 pitchers who have pitched 550 innings over that time are all quality pitchers. Masterson and a couple others could be debateable as quality, When you drop the IP on fangraphs to 450 innings, the list starts looking a lot worse.

 

How many Twins were on the list?

[TheLeviathan]

I don't especially care if people agree with me initial statement but I found it to be an interesting discussion on pitching and value.

 

How exactly is it interesting or meaningful to discuss how to evaluate pitchers with the premise of "Ok, if we ignore all context and only focus in on one limited stat....which one would it be?" It's something akin to evaluating how great the internet is by working offline and looking at the google homepage.

 

The conversation was about the Twins prizing durability over talent to such a degree that they overvalue it at the others expense. Citing IP as valuable lends credence to that faulty stance of the organization. We want durable pitchers who are good at pitching. One without the other is useless, trying to argue one of the other seems pointless or a bizarre defense of the organization on shaky ground.

[Kobs]

Are runs and outs not the two most important stats in baseball?

 

No. Even in this pointless argument, runs and runs against are the only two important stats. I haven't seen too many teams trying to let the other team tie a game up so they can get some more outs.

[DaveW]

There obviously is no one "important" stat when it comes to pitching, but if you are going to go down that road you'd be better served at looking at quality starts, at least then if you see a high number you have a good idea that a pitcher is at least giving you some solid innings and keeping you in the game.

 

Albeit QS is flawed to, I have a hard time believing that 6 IP, 3ER is somehow more valuable then 8IP 4ER etc