The rotation as it stands today

[Brock Beauchamp]

Joe Ryan - 127 ERA+
Sonny Gray - 176 ERA+
Chris Archer - 124 ERA+
Devin Smeltzer - 134 ERA+
Dylan Bundy - 81 ERA+

Just as we all predicted, of course.

[jorgenswest]

12 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Joe Ryan - 127 ERA+
Sonny Gray - 176 ERA+
Chris Archer - 124 ERA+
Devin Smeltzer - 134 ERA+
Dylan Bundy - 81 ERA+

Just as we all predicted, of course.

If you look at xFIP only Gray is better than league average. In season it is a better predictor of the future. I hope it is not foreshadowing trouble in the second half.

By FIP we can add Ryan. Bundy is the only start with a FIP lower than ERA. Bundy ranks second in xFIP and 3rd in FIP among those 5. I guess we could look at it as encouraging for Bundy or worrisome looking forward for Archer and Smeltzer. 

[IndianaTwin]

What's the status on Ober? 

 

[ashbury]

10 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Joe Ryan - 127 ERA+
Sonny Gray - 176 ERA+
Chris Archer - 124 ERA+
Devin Smeltzer - 134 ERA+
Dylan Bundy - 81 ERA+

Just as we all predicted, of course.

ERA is a rate stat of course, and is a very traditional and well honored measure which I personally rely on.  ERA+ likewise measures a rate of production, normalized in a couple of ways (relative to league average but also adjusted for ballparks).   Sonny Gray would rank 7th in all the majors in ERA+, if he had enough innings to qualify on baseball-reference.com's rankings, while the other three except Bundy are comfortably in the top 30, except that none of them qualifies either.

A starting pitcher is not measured solely by quality, but also by quantity.   WAR is a cumulative stat, and in that our guys look solid relative to the league but not impressive - our best two guys (Ryan and Gray) rank something like tied-for-38th in the majors.  Except for Bundy, who has a poor WAR in keeping with his ERA+, they all are contributing, but not at a level similar to the best.

The related stat Wins Above Average tells a similar story.  So does WPA, the win-probability added batter by batter during the pitcher's time on the mound.  The Twins are led in WPA by Duran, not surprisingly since a reliever can rack up a lot of contribution to winning by closing out some close games; but behind Duran our starters have decent WPA but again not anywhere close to major-league leading.

To the degree they have shouldered a smaller burden than their peers around the league, their eye-catching ERAs+ might be a bit of a mirage.  WPA would tell you that Archer really hasn't contributed much in terms of winning at all (it's even unkind enough to suggest Joe Smith has contributed more).

To reiterate: at this writing 64 pitchers in the majors have enough innings to qualify for an ERA title.  Not one of them is a Twin.  It may not be entirely their fault, or of their own choosing, but starters worth their salt are supposed to qualify. 

I understand you were just looking to highlight nice results and not to provide a comprehensive analysis, but for starting pitchers good ERA+ is a little bit of coulda-woulda-shoulda if not backed up by great gobs of innings pitched.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

8 hours ago, ashbury said:

ERA is a rate stat of course, and is a very traditional and well honored measure which I personally rely on.  ERA+ likewise measures a rate of production, normalized in a couple of ways (relative to league average but also adjusted for ballparks).   Sonny Gray would rank 7th in all the majors in ERA+, if he had enough innings to qualify on baseball-reference.com's rankings, while the other three except Bundy are comfortably in the top 30, except that none of them qualifies either.

A starting pitcher is not measured solely by quality, but also by quantity.   WAR is a cumulative stat, and in that our guys look solid relative to the league but not impressive - our best two guys (Ryan and Gray) rank something like tied-for-38th in the majors.  Except for Bundy, who has a poor WAR in keeping with his ERA+, they all are contributing, but not at a level similar to the best.

The related stat Wins Above Average tells a similar story.  So does WPA, the win-probability added batter by batter during the pitcher's time on the mound.  The Twins are led in WPA by Duran, not surprisingly since a reliever can rack up a lot of contribution to winning by closing out some close games; but behind Duran our starters have decent WPA but again not anywhere close to major-league leading.

To the degree they have shouldered a smaller burden than their peers around the league, their eye-catching ERAs+ might be a bit of a mirage.  WPA would tell you that Archer really hasn't contributed much in terms of winning at all (it's even unkind enough to suggest Joe Smith has contributed more).

To reiterate: at this writing 64 pitchers in the majors have enough innings to qualify for an ERA title.  Not one of them is a Twin.  It may not be entirely their fault, or of their own choosing, but starters worth their salt are supposed to qualify. 

I understand you were just looking to highlight nice results and not to provide a comprehensive analysis, but for starting pitchers good ERA+ is a little bit of coulda-woulda-shoulda if not backed up by great gobs of innings pitched.

Agreed, but the FO from the offseason “designed” the Twins rotation with zero pitchers with a shot at 180 innings on the season, and on opening day maybe had one with a legit shot at 150 innings.

as was the thrust of the article RB shared, this team was never going to succeed by traditional standards.

[Brock Beauchamp]

9 hours ago, ashbury said:

ERA is a rate stat of course, and is a very traditional and well honored measure which I personally rely on.  ERA+ likewise measures a rate of production, normalized in a couple of ways (relative to league average but also adjusted for ballparks).   Sonny Gray would rank 7th in all the majors in ERA+, if he had enough innings to qualify on baseball-reference.com's rankings, while the other three except Bundy are comfortably in the top 30, except that none of them qualifies either.

A starting pitcher is not measured solely by quality, but also by quantity.   WAR is a cumulative stat, and in that our guys look solid relative to the league but not impressive - our best two guys (Ryan and Gray) rank something like tied-for-38th in the majors.  Except for Bundy, who has a poor WAR in keeping with his ERA+, they all are contributing, but not at a level similar to the best.

The related stat Wins Above Average tells a similar story.  So does WPA, the win-probability added batter by batter during the pitcher's time on the mound.  The Twins are led in WPA by Duran, not surprisingly since a reliever can rack up a lot of contribution to winning by closing out some close games; but behind Duran our starters have decent WPA but again not anywhere close to major-league leading.

To the degree they have shouldered a smaller burden than their peers around the league, their eye-catching ERAs+ might be a bit of a mirage.  WPA would tell you that Archer really hasn't contributed much in terms of winning at all (it's even unkind enough to suggest Joe Smith has contributed more).

To reiterate: at this writing 64 pitchers in the majors have enough innings to qualify for an ERA title.  Not one of them is a Twin.  It may not be entirely their fault, or of their own choosing, but starters worth their salt are supposed to qualify. 

I understand you were just looking to highlight nice results and not to provide a comprehensive analysis, but for starting pitchers good ERA+ is a little bit of coulda-woulda-shoulda if not backed up by great gobs of innings pitched.

You’re taking my post a little too seriously. I intentionally used ERA+ because it looks so good. I was just having a bit of fun. 

[old nurse]

23 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

You’re taking my post a little too seriously. I intentionally used ERA+ because it looks so good. I was just having a bit of fun. 

I thought the first post seemed like an odd post for your usual posting. Even after a decade of reading your posts they couldn’t tell you were playing them. Nicely done