Chris Archer, Iron Man?

[Trov]

14 hours ago, mnfireman said:

Granted Archer lost time due to injury and we don't know the lingering effects, but I looked up Bob Feller's BR page and saw that he missed the 1942-1944 seasons to fight in WWII and was released from active duty August 24, 1945. So, after missing 3 full seasons and most of a 4th, Feller made 9 starts in August and September, going 5-3 with a 2.50 ERA over 72 innings (8 IP per start).

Not saying Archer is Feller (he is not even close) but I think that he can throw more than 60-65 pitches in a game when compared to a guy who missed 3.75 seasons and threw very little if at all over that time period.

If you want to compare a guy to someone who pitched in the 40's why not bring up the fact that Cy Young used to pitch almost every other day and would throw 9 innings a game.  Pitchers are not like they were before.  They throw harder, put more stress on body than they did before.  Just look at the average fastball numbers over the years.  Archer fastball is average now, but in the 40's I bet he would have had one of the fastest pitches in baseball.  I remember when I first really started watching baseball in the mid-90's and a 94 to 95 fastball was considered elite, now it is average. Now unless you throw 99 plus your fastball is not considered top velo.  

I do not understand when people try to compare pitchers now to decades ago.  

[TwinsDr2021]

15 hours ago, rwilfong86 said:

I'd like to see him try to get to 80-90 pitches as the season goes on, the bullpen could use that sort of length from him. I understand with the injuries why they are being so cautious with him.

IMO pitch count isn't what is keeping Archer from pitching more innings, it is the Twins limiting his exposure.  For example all this month he has had a farily low pitch count in every game and was still being taken out. He pitched 76 pitches on 4/19 and only three times has exceeded that, and multiple times was quite a bit lower than that and taken out in the 4th or 5th inning.

[mnfireman]

From Bob Feller's Wikipedia page:

To publicize Feller's extraordinary pitching speed, the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball commissioned sports film analysis pioneer and former major leaguer Lew Fonseca to pit Feller's fastball against a motorcycle in a "100 mph" speed trial. The test was conducted in Chicago's Lincoln Park, with Feller in street shoes, suit pants, dress shirt, and tie, pitching without a mound on an asphalt roadway. He was required to hit a target 12 inches (300 mm) in diameter from 60 feet 6 inches (18.44 m) away, "as control is as important as speed".^[29] The still accelerating Harley-Davidson passed Feller going 86 mph (138 km/h), yet even with a generous head start the ball beat the bike to the target by several feet. Feller's throw was calculated at the time to have reached 98.6 mph (158.7 km/h), later raised to 104 mph (167 km/h) using updated measuring methods.^{[3]: 27 [6][20]}

 

[rwilfong86]

47 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

IMO pitch count isn't what is keeping Archer from pitching more innings, it is the Twins limiting his exposure.  For example all this month he has had a farily low pitch count in every game and was still being taken out. He pitched 76 pitches on 4/19 and only three times has exceeded that, and multiple times was quite a bit lower than that and taken out in the 4th or 5th inning.

Everything I've heard is more along the lines of limiting him due to his injury history. But they really need to get more out of him if possible down the stretch.

[TwinsDr2021]

17 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

Everything I've heard is more along the lines of limiting him due to his injury history. But they really need to get more out of him if possible down the stretch.

Sure that might be the BS they are giving, but that doesn't explain, pulling him in the 4th after 61 pitches, or 67 pitches, or 70 and 57 after 5.

[prouster]

Bob Feller is our measuring stick for a backend starter now? Tough crowd. 

[PopRiveter]

15 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I'm not parring down some hypothetical. His inability to pitch beyond the 4th and his poor underlying numbers are a reality. The backup plan is? Hope Winder's shoulder stays healthy? Hope Balazovic gets it together in AAA? You see where this is going right? They paid for a starter; I'm far less worried about "getting your money's worth," at $3M than I am about the rotation spot. I could've made the same value argument about Pagan when he'd put up something like +2 WPA a month into the season. 

What are some of these metrics if not predictive? If we're outright dismissing regression then yeah we're

I've never seen a team lose a game due to underlying numbers suggesting future regression.

 

?

[PopRiveter]

17 minutes ago, prouster said:

Bob Feller is our measuring stick for a backend starter now? Tough crowd. 

Some folks here set the bar pretty high. And in fairness, I left the door wide open to that sort of comparison when I put the words "Iron Man" in the post title. 

Honestly though, it was tongue-in-cheek. I should have put a huge asterisk and made sure to denote I meant *2022 Twins nearest equivalent

Bundy leads the team in innings pitched and he is 101st in mlb right now. 

The 2022 Twins have no Bob Feller.

I'm glad they have Chris Archer.

I don't find them to be particularly comparable pitchers.

[KirbyDome89]

15 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Your entire argument rests on unfair expectations.  They didn't get a cure for cancer for their 3.5M either...so "Boo!" Chris Archer I guess.

They paid for a depth starter.  (Hell, half of that going rate really, but I'm being as fair as possible to your argument) They've gotten that and one who has pitched really freaking well AND stayed healthy.  I mean, if they paid him like Noah Syndegaard then sure.  They paid what you pay your 5th guy in your bullpen on an arbitration deal much less a starter. Their ROI is through the freaking roof.

Who has Archer stolen his starting spot from?  Bundy?  Sands?  Oh right.....nobody.  They've desperately needed him and he's been there every fifth day.  I'd argue even if his ERA was north of 5, just by being a warm, competent body was worth the 3.5M, much less the production.

EXACTLY. MY. POINT. He isn't a depth starter. He's been in the rotation from day 1. Cool, they paid him mop up money, but that isn't the job he's being asked to do is it? Maybe that's not "fair," to Archer, but who cares. The Twins are relying on him to solidify the rotation, and they'll continue to do so moving forward. That's concerning for reasons I've already touched on. 

[KirbyDome89]

40 minutes ago, PopRiveter said:

I've never seen a team lose a game due to underlying numbers suggesting future regression.

 

?

You just watched Pagan melt down against Cleveland the other night, or perhaps you've repressed that memory. 

[MMMordabito]

As Jordan Peterson would say, "Let's get precise!"

Archer "may earn additional $9.5M in performance bonuses based on starts and appearances of 3 innings or more".

The bonus structure is setup like this:

Appearance Incentives
$250,000 each for 12, 14  [BOTH EARNED as of 6/25]
$500,000 each for 16, 18, 20, 22, 24
$750,000 each for 26, 28, 30, 32

He gets $2.75M as a base salary, but has a $3.5m guarantee for 2022.  I'm not sure if that extra $750K is because of the buyout on the $10M option for 2023.  That part is confusing for me, so I would welcome an explanation, if someone knows.

So at this point, he should be at $3.25M (Base + Earned Incentives) and $4M guaranteed.

Cot's says an additional $9.5M ($13M total?), but the Spotrac info shows that $9.5M is the max guaranteed.

The Twins have received good value on the earned part so far, and they appear to have a good deal going forward, if Archer can just continue to do what he's been doing.  I'd like to see the walks come down and the innings to go up, but I can't complain about this as a fifth starter and positive veteran influence to all the young pitchers.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

EXACTLY. MY. POINT. He isn't a depth starter. He's been in the rotation from day 1. Cool, they paid him mop up money, but that isn't the job he's being asked to do is it? Maybe that's not "fair," to Archer, but who cares. The Twins are relying on him to solidify the rotation, and they'll continue to do so moving forward. That's concerning for reasons I've already touched on. 

And they got way more than 3.5M worth of production is my point.  They paid a hail mary price for a solid 4th starter.

That's a giant effing win.  Period.  There is zero rational response other than "yup" to that.

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, rwilfong86 said:

Everything I've heard is more along the lines of limiting him due to his injury history. But they really need to get more out of him if possible down the stretch.

Chris Archer openly applauds how the Twins are treating him and rebuilding his career.  He borderline gushes.

These gripes have zero basis in reality. 

[KirbyDome89]

31 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

And they got way more than 3.5M worth of production is my point.  They paid a hail mary price for a solid 4th starter.

That's a giant effing win.  Period.  There is zero rational response other than "yup" to that.

Regression concerns, especially when plan B is a question mark, seems pretty rationale to me when we're talking about a rotation spot over the course of an entire season, but hey, value. 

 

[TheLeviathan]

12 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Regression concerns, especially when plan B is a question mark, seems pretty rationale to me when we're talking about a rotation spot over the course of an entire season, but hey, value. 

 

Archer was signed as plan B.  There is no such thing as a plan B with no question marks.  That's why it's plan B! Hell, Plan As often have questions.  Again, totally unfair expectation.

He would have to be a flaming tire fire (healthy and giving up 9 runs a game bad) just to regress the value to "fine".  For someone not disagreeing, you sure seem disagreeable to the rather simple, and obviously true, claim that he has been an exceptional signing.

[PopRiveter]

3 hours ago, PopRiveter said:

I've never seen a team lose a game due to underlying numbers suggesting future regression.

 

?

3 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

You just watched Pagan melt down against Cleveland the other night, or perhaps you've repressed that memory. 

That was due to actual outcomes on the field (actual runs being scored against him), not expected outcome (projecting how many runs would be theoretically likely to score against if one superimposes a league average BABIP.) If Pagan put up a lousy FIP during that outing while allowing 0 runs, it still would've moved them closer to a win. That's my point.

I'd been reading your ongoing debate where you kept arguing expected future performance against TheLeviathan who kept arguing on the field, results-based value.

You both make some valid points, but I don't think you're arguing the same thing.

I'm personally more grateful for the quality innings that have been stacking up and helping the team than I am afraid that he may turn into a pumpkin. You certainly don't have to see things the same as I do. I'd gladly crack a beer with you and enjoy a few innings and some friendly debate. 

[KirbyDome89]

34 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Archer was signed as plan B.  There is no such thing as a plan B with no question marks.  That's why it's plan B! Hell, Plan As often have questions.  Again, totally unfair expectation.

He would have to be a flaming tire fire (healthy and giving up 9 runs a game bad) just to regress the value to "fine".  For someone not disagreeing, you sure seem disagreeable to the rather simple, and obviously true, claim that he has been an exceptional signing.

He was in the starting lineup from Day 1. That isn't a plan B...

I'm not arguing whether he's worth $3. I'm arguing that shouldn't be the metric used based on the job he's been asked to do all year. 

[TheLeviathan]

3 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

He was in the starting lineup from Day 1. That isn't a plan B...

I'm not arguing whether he's worth $3. I'm arguing that shouldn't be the metric used based on the job he's been asked to do all year. 

It all makes sense now! They forgot to ask the question-free #2 starters who take 3M contracts to sign with them!

What dummies!

[KirbyDome89]

10 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

It all makes sense now! They forgot to ask the question-free #2 starters who take 3M contracts to sign with them!

What dummies!

Oakland is probably getting some great value too. 

Just imagine the outpouring of joy if the Twins went that route!

[TheLeviathan]

10 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Oakland is probably getting some great value too. 

Just imagine the outpouring of joy if the Twins went that route!

Acknowledging this great value in no way comments on whether they could/should have done more.  Again, an unfair aspect to your disagreement.

[KirbyDome89]

40 minutes ago, PopRiveter said:

That was due to actual outcomes on the field (actual runs being scored against him), not expected outcome (projecting how many runs would be theoretically likely to score against if one superimposes a league average BABIP.) If Pagan put up a lousy FIP during that outing while allowing 0 runs, it still would've moved them closer to a win. That's my point.

I'd been reading your ongoing debate where you kept arguing expected future performance against TheLeviathan who kept arguing on the field, results-based value.

You both make some valid points, but I don't think you're arguing the same thing.

I'm personally more grateful for the quality innings that have been stacking up and helping the team than I am afraid that he may turn into a pumpkin. You certainly don't have to see things the same as I do. I'd gladly crack a beer with you and enjoy a few innings and some friendly debate. 

Predictive doesn't mean actually forecasting individual events during a single game, it's a more longitudinal approach. Pagan has struggled with allowing baserunners all year. Early on he worked his way out of nearly every jam. That's unsustainable; eventually those runners are going to start crossing home plate, i.e. what we're seeing now. 

First round is on you. Utepils Vera Cruz por favor!

[KirbyDome89]

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Acknowledging this great value in no way comments on whether they could/should have done more.  Again, an unfair aspect to your disagreement.

I'm not even going down the rabbit hole of could've/should've done more. I'm saying Archer's value is relative to the job he's being asked to do, not just how little MN is paying him. 

[TheLeviathan]

5 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I'm not even going down the rabbit hole of could've/should've done more. I'm saying Archer's value is relative to the job he's being asked to do, not just how little MN is paying him. 

You mean be a consistent,effective, positive WAR player for pennies?

Pretty sure that's the dictionary definition of "good value".  But I don't see the point of engaging these 100% disagreeable positions if you aren't, in fact, disagreeing as you claim.

[KirbyDome89]

8 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

You mean be a consistent,effective, positive WAR player for pennies?

Pretty sure that's the dictionary definition of "good value".  But I don't see the point of engaging these 100% disagreeable positions if you aren't, in fact, disagreeing as you claim.

Your entire defense against regression is financial value...

Rotation stability > dollars spent per WAR. I can't be more clear than that. Archer was signed to be a starter. Idc whether he's making $3M or $15M. 

[TheLeviathan]

5 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Your entire defense against regression is financial value...

Rotation stability > dollars spent per WAR. I can't be more clear than that. Archer was signed to be a starter. Idc whether he's making $3M or $15M. 

My entire "defense", an odd term for a not-disagreement?, is that it's July and he's been healthy and effective for couch cushion change.  Yup....good value. Definitionally.

I don't know how I could be claiming anything more plainly, obviously true. Seriously.  Going out on another limb.....Water is wet too.  Not looking to "agree" with you for 2 pages on that either.

[KirbyDome89]

8 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

My entire "defense", an odd term for a not-disagreement?, is that it's July and he's been healthy and effective for couch cushion change.  Yup....good value. Definitionally.

I don't know how I could be claiming anything more plainly, obviously true. Seriously.  Going out on another limb.....Water is wet too.  Not looking to "agree" with you for 2 pages on that either.

I'll pass on assigning financial value top priority. I guess it's the ultimate trump card though, and it's obviously fun to repeat it ad nauseam. You should hashtag it. 

 

[PopRiveter]

3 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

First round is on you. Utepils Vera Cruz por favor!

Sign me up!

[Coach Wheels]

I would seriously consider Archer or Ober to tje bullpen once everyone is healthy. Archer might be a guy who can throw back to back days 

[GopherJeff]

Archer today  - 4 IP, 1 H, SIX BB! Yikes.