Article: Twins Being Crushed by Constant Contact

[ThePuck]

Also, Silva threw 188 innings in 27 starts in 2005, meaning he averaged 7IP/start. He also topped 200 innings in '04 and '07.

 

And that's fine, but he also used Santana as an opposing view on Ks saying 6 innings was common for Santana and that he rarely pitched into the 8th inning.

[cmathewson]

Inductive reasoning?

 

Looking at the game logs from 2006, he had 6 games when he left in the sixth or before. He had 4 games when he left after six. He had 15 games when he left after seven. He had eight games when he pitched through the eighth. So he pitched 6 or fewer in 30% of his starts. That was common for him throughout his career

 

Also, it's worth noting that the games he had his best stuff, he got more strikeouts. Not surprisingly, those were the games where he pitched deeper into the game. When he didn't have his best stuff, he left in the sixth with just a few strikeouts.

 

I get the math. It's kind of a law that you will pitch more innings if you have more strikeouts. But not everybody can get strikeouts when they need them. In fact, most guys can't. So they muddle through pitching to contact. I'm suggesting that for the Nick Blackburns of the world (in his prime) it worked a lot better to get ground balls than to try to get strikeouts.

[Nick Nelson]

Yeah, Santana is probably not a good example as he's one of the most efficient strikeout pitchers on the planet.

[drivlikejehu]

There are different ways to succeed (or not) as a pitcher. The clearly correct strategy is to target the best available pitchers regardless of their particular approach.

 

If someone is a 5.50 ERA pitcher, who cares if the reason is excessive contact or poor control? The outcome is the same. The problem with the Twins is that they are ignorant of DIPS theory and thus prone to overpaying for low-strikeout pitchers.

 

But, catching up with everyone else in baseball philosophically doesn't magically add talent to the staff. The problems in drafting, player development, etc. probably don't have too much to do with the "pitch to contact" mantra.

[ThePuck]

Looking at the game logs from 2006, he had 6 games when he left in the sixth or before. He had 4 games when he left after six. He had 15 games when he left after seven. He had eight games when he pitched through the eighth. So he pitched 6 or fewer in 30% of his starts. That was common for him throughout his career

 

Also, it's worth noting that the games he had his best stuff, he got more strikeouts. Not surprisingly, those were the games where he pitched deeper into the game. When he didn't have his best stuff, he left in the sixth with just a few strikeouts.

 

I get the math. It's kind of a law that you will pitch more innings if you have more strikeouts. But not everybody can get strikeouts when they need them. In fact, most guys can't. So they muddle through pitching to contact. I'm suggesting that for the Nick Blackburns of the world (in his prime) it worked a lot better to get ground balls than to try to get strikeouts.

 

'Santana lived within pitch counts, and only rarely pitched into the eighth inning.'

 

Santana became a full time starter for us in 2004. From 2004-2007, Santana pitched into the 8th inning 36 times between. That's more than 1/4 of his starts. So that's not 'rarely'

 

'Six innings was common for him.'

 

In 2004, he had 25 games where he pitched into the 7th inning. 22 games where he went 7 inning or more.

 

In 2005, he had 24 games where he pitched into the 7th inning. 22 games where he went 7 innings or more.

 

In 2006, he had 26 games where he pitched into the 7th inning. 24 games where he went 7 innings or more.

 

In 2007, he had 20 games where he went 7 innings or more.

 

How was 6 innings common for him?

 

30% isn't often thought of as common and 25% is often thought of as rarely.

[Guest USAFChief]

Cmat is framing this as contact pitchers vs. high-K/high-BB pitchers, which is more relevant because then we're talking about players that might be realistically available to the Twins

.

Actually, cmat framed it thusly: "Strikeout guys struggle to complete more than six innings because Ks require more pitches than the quick outs a sinkerballer can get, when he's on his game." If he's backed off that statement, fine. Otherwise, I take exception to the idea that strikeout pitchers, by definition, use more pitches than non-strikeout pitchers. Anyone can find an outlier and throw that up as "evidence." But that doesn't mean they aren't the exception, or that guys who K a lot of hitters, in general, stuggle to complete more than six innings simply because they K a lot of hitters. In fact, in general, just the opposite appears to be true.

[nicksaviking]

Given the choice, I'm sure the Twins would love to have a staff full of Harveys. If memory serves, he was the eighth overall pick in the 2010 draft. That year, we drafted in the late 20s, as we have for most of the last decade. There just aren't a lot of pitchers with the kind of stuff to get a high K rate available when we draft.

 

2010, the Twins took Alex Wimmers, the guy everyone said would go to the Twins despite them picking 20th. How did everyone know this "nearly MLB ready" college arm would go to the Twins? Because he had no upsided and everyone knew the Twins picked for saftey, not upside in arms.

 

Had they had the stones, they could have taken HS pitchers Jesse Biddle, Zack Cox, Aaron Sanchez, Noah Syndergaard or Tijuan Walker instead. Of the seven HS arms drafted after Wimmers, Cito Culver was converted to SS, Cam Bedrosian had TJ surgery and looks likely to bust and then these five guys who populate everyones top 100 lists.

 

Their passive decisioning reeks with the fear of mistakes and because of this, their mistakes reek of passive decisioning.

[stringer bell]

Aren't the three guys they brought in this year supposed to be a bridge to Meyer, May, Berrios, and Gibson? Worley might be a guy they are counting on long term--not sure--but Pelfry and Correia likely won't be here in 2015 and probably before that. To me, the idea was to hope to catch lightning in a bottle with the new acquisitions and in the likely they didn't strike gold with those guys, either dispatch by release or trade and make way for the real prospects, who will strike out guys and miss bats.

[ashbury]

I'm suggesting that for the Nick Blackburns of the world (in his prime) it worked a lot better to get ground balls than to try to get strikeouts.

 

I muddled through writing a lengthy response to an earlier post, only to discover after posting that several others had answered more concisely. So I'll summarize my thoughts by saying that sure, once you have a Blackburn under contract, you may as well maximize what you've got. But that doesn't mean shying away from better talent acquisition under some misguided notion that strikeout pitchers don't go deep into games. Because, they do.

[cmathewson]

Actually, cmat framed it thusly: "Strikeout guys struggle to complete more than six innings because Ks require more pitches than the quick outs a sinkerballer can get, when he's on his game." If he's backed off that statement, fine. Otherwise, I take exception to the idea that strikeout pitchers, by definition, use more pitches than non-strikeout pitchers. Anyone can find an outlier and throw that up as "evidence." But that doesn't mean they aren't the exception, or that guys who K a lot of hitters, in general, stuggle to complete more than six innings simply because they K a lot of hitters. In fact, in general, just the opposite appears to be true.

 

Actually, I was trying to frame it, albeit clumsily, as a case of trying to pitch as efficiently as possible given your limitations. If you can get strikeouts any time you want, you will not have a problem putting up innings. But if you can't, your only hope of eating innings is pitching to contact. If you try to strike guys out and you can't, you will end up throwing a lot of pitches and get pulled after five.

 

Also this: To my knowledge, the Twins only preach pitch to contact for pitchers who struggle to get strike outs (most of their pitchers). When they had Santana and briefly Liriano, they were happy to have the strikeouts. The problem is not with the philosophy. The problem is with the lack of strikeout pitchers they have had. I can excuse that, though, because true strikeout pitchers are rare and expensive.

[drivlikejehu]

How generous to "excuse" the Twins and their heavily subsidized stadium for striking out the fewest opponents of any Major League team.

[ashbury]

Actually, I was trying to frame it, albeit clumsily, as a case of trying to pitch as efficiently as possible given your limitations. If you can get strikeouts any time you want, you will not have a problem putting up innings.

 

But you started this sub-thread with the statement "Strikeout guys struggle to complete more than six innings", which is just not supported by any evidence anyone has presented, in fact quite the opposite.

 

I normally enjoy reading your posts and I kind of hate to seem to hammer on this, but it seemed so fundamental to your position.

[nicksaviking]

Also this: To my knowledge, the Twins only preach pitch to contact for pitchers who struggle to get strike outs (most of their pitchers). When they had Santana and briefly Liriano, they were happy to have the strikeouts. The problem is not with the philosophy. The problem is with the lack of strikeout pitchers they have had. I can excuse that, though, because true strikeout pitchers are rare and expensive.

 

They are not that rare. This is the era of the three true outcome hitter. Everyone's striking out. Joe Mauer struck out 88 times last year for Pete's sake. 52 pitchers had a K/9 of 7.0 or higher last year. The Twins surely will have no such starter this year.

[Willihammer]

Here are the correlations for the 128 qualified starting pitchers since 2010.

 

http://i.imgur.com/PCrHeVi.png

 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5pIzP28qdp-MzgxNVVNNlJ5elU/edit?usp=sharing

 

Strikeouts will rack up your pitch count but the greater offender by far, is walks.

[ThePuck]

Here are the correlations for the 128 qualified starting pitchers since 2010.

 

http://i.imgur.com/PCrHeVi.png

 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5pIzP28qdp-MzgxNVVNNlJ5elU/edit?usp=sharing

 

Strikeouts will rack up your pitch count but the greater offender by far, is walks.

 

where do giving up hits rate as far as raising pitch count? :-)

[Willihammer]

Actually, I was trying to frame it, albeit clumsily, as a case of trying to pitch as efficiently as possible given your limitations. If you can get strikeouts any time you want, you will not have a problem putting up innings. But if you can't, your only hope of eating innings is pitching to contact. If you try to strike guys out and you can't, you will end up throwing a lot of pitches and get pulled after five.

 

I don't think this logic is necessarily sound. For starters, the team objective is to minimize runs. So if you have to trade x number of baserunners (and runs) in order to gain y number of innings out of your starters, then you have at least ask, is it worth the tradeoff? Maybe when your starter gets ahead 1-2, the team would be better served by your starter trying to strikeout that batter every time, even if it raises his pitch count slightly.

[Willihammer]

where do giving up hits rate as far as raising pitch count? :-)

 

[TABLE=width: 64]

H%-P/IP Correlation

[TD=align: right]-0.19166[/TD]

[/TABLE]

 

More hits, fewer pitches/IP

 

edit: But,

 

[TABLE=width: 64]

H%-ERA Correlation

[TD=align: right]0.655375[/TD]

[/TABLE]

[cmathewson]

They are not that rare. This is the era of the three true outcome hitter. Everyone's striking out. Joe Mauer struck out 88 times last year for Pete's sake. 52 pitchers had a K/9 of 7.0 or higher last year. The Twins surely will have no such starter this year.

 

52 starters had K/9 rates above 7? I'm thinking a lot of those pitchers are relievers. And I think the Twins have several of those. Burton, Perkins and Fien all had K/9 rates higher than 7 last year.

 

The only starter in the rotation right now who had K rates above 7 the last three years is Worley. Kyle Gibson has consistently put up K rates above 7 per 9 in the minors. So that would be two this year. By next year, they should have Meyer and May, who feature K/9 rates in the double digits i the minors. So that's four. We're getting there.

[ThePuck]

[TABLE=width: 64]

H%-P/IP Correlation

[TD=align: right]-0.19166[/TD]

[/TABLE]

 

More hits, fewer pitches/IP

 

I meant, when ranking walks, Ks and hits, which one is affecting pitch counts the most? But thanks for that nightmarish flashback :-)

[Alex]

52 starters had K/9 rates above 7? I'm thinking a lot of those pitchers are relievers.

 

 

You would be dead wrong. You've been watching and following the Twins philosophy too much.

 

Seriously, you need to be able and willing to look at SOME stats when you are trying to defend your points otherwise you lose credibility. 52 qualified starters had K rates over 7. 108 relievers had more than 7 k/9 rates.

[Willihammer]

I meant, when ranking walks, Ks and hits, which one is affecting pitch counts the most? But thanks for that nightmarish flashback :-)

 

Walks, followed distantly by Ks and slightly after that, hits.

 

But, I skipped a step, technically. We're merely talking balls in p lay, not necessarily hits. But if you assume nobody strays too far from the mean BABIP, you can basically equate H% to balls-in-play%

[ashbury]

52 starters had K/9 rates above 7? I'm thinking a lot of those pitchers are relievers. And I think the Twins have several of those. Burton, Perkins and Fien all had K/9 rates higher than 7 last year.

 

This is easy to check and you just should. Go to

2012 Major League Baseball Standard Pitching - Baseball-Reference.com

Scroll down to "Player Standard Pitching". After the full page has finished loading, click on "SO/9", to sort them by strikeout rate. You'll see a little check-box for "Hide non-qualifiers for rate stats", which by default I think is always checked anyway. This weeds out the relievers who didn't have enough innings for the ERA title.

[ThePuck]

Walks, followed distantly by Ks and slightly after that, hits.

 

But, I skipped a step, technically. We're merely talking balls in p lay, not necessarily hits. But if you assume nobody strays too far from the mean BABIP, you can basically equate H% to balls-in-play%

 

I guess what I mean is...if a guy gives up three hits in an inning and averages 5 or more pitches per those three batters, you can rake up the pitch counts because people are getting hits forcing him to face more batters.

 

I don't mean just the hit itself.

 

It's fantastic info you gave me though.

[snepp]

cmat, if I throw you a rope will you climb out of that hole?

[cmathewson]

You would be dead wrong. You've been watching and following the Twins philosophy too much.

 

Seriously, you need to be able and willing to look at SOME stats when you are trying to defend your points otherwise you lose credibility. 52 qualified starters had K rates over 7. 108 relievers had more than 7 k/9 rates.

 

I wasn't stating, I was asking. It wasn't clear from the post.

[snepp]

This is easy to check and you just should. Go to

2012 Major League Baseball Standard Pitching - Baseball-Reference.com

Scroll down to "Player Standard Pitching". After the full page has finished loading, click on "SO/9", to sort them by strikeout rate. You'll see a little check-box for "Hide non-qualifiers for rate stats", which by default I think is always checked anyway. This weeds out the relievers who didn't have enough innings for the ERA title.

 

Or use the Fangraphs leaderboards, if you select the starter or reliever sub-groups it will strip out whatever numbers you don't want to see.

[Alex]

I wasn't stating, I was asking. It wasn't clear from the post.

 

Okay, but I think the rest of the post still stands and it is why you are getting a lot of blowback on this thread. It would literally take less than a minute to look up the stats that have been discussed here (as others have pointed out).

[cmathewson]

But you started this sub-thread with the statement "Strikeout guys struggle to complete more than six innings", which is just not supported by any evidence anyone has presented, in fact quite the opposite.

 

I normally enjoy reading your posts and I kind of hate to seem to hammer on this, but it seemed so fundamental to your position.

 

Well, as I've written, it was badly stated in the first place. To add to that, I picked a really bad example in Santana, who is a very efficient pitcher who could strike people out.

 

I've already tried to correct what I wrote, so I won't dig a bigger hole by repeating myself. I don't mind failing fast and learning from that. Not a problem.

[cmathewson]

Okay, but I think the rest of the post still stands and it is why you are getting a lot of blowback on this thread. It would literally take less than a minute to look up the stats that have been discussed here (as others have pointed out).

 

I did look up stats. I am not lazy in that way. In the original post I wrote, I was trying to play Devils advocate by stating what I think is the Twins philosophy. Philosophy is not about stats. When questioned, I did post stats. I get the blowback, and I don't mind. I can take it. I'm perfectly happy to play this role if it makes for a livelier discussion.

[Otto von Ballpark]

But Santana lived within pitch counts, and only rarely pitched into the eighth inning. Six innings was common for him.

Allow me to pile on here: from 2004-2007, Santana failed to pitch into the 7th inning 37 times. He also pitched into the 8th inning exactly 37 times. But one is rare and the other is common? Ha!