Let's Trade with the Rockies

[Rosterman]

MLBtrade rumors has mentioned that COlorado is hoping to move some pieces.

The Twins need a closer. Why not?

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/07/rockies-reportedly-open-to-trading-chad-kuhl-alex-colome.html

We could send them Pagan, our wanna be closer, for Colombe, who may be a better second-half pitcher again. Good chance to take? Throw in a Bundy exchange for Kuhl. Maybe sweeten the pot for Colorado with Strotman as a throw-in with a low-level prospect in return.

 

[SwainZag]

42 minutes ago, Rosterman said:

MLBtrade rumors has mentioned that COlorado is hoping to move some pieces.

The Twins need a closer. Why not?

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/07/rockies-reportedly-open-to-trading-chad-kuhl-alex-colome.html

We could send them Pagan, our wanna be closer, for Colombe, who may be a better second-half pitcher again. Good chance to take? Throw in a Bundy exchange for Kuhl. Maybe sweeten the pot for Colorado with Strotman as a throw-in with a low-level prospect in return.

 

I would prefer not bring Colome back.  Too many bad memories of 2021.

Kuhl's numbers this year:

4.02 ERA/4.28 FIP/4.71 xFIP/6.49 K.9/3.4 BB.9

Bundy's numbers:

4.69 ERA/3.92 FIP/4.26 xFIP/6.84 K.9/1.92 BB.9

And Kuhl's numbers are actually better at Colorado than away.    I just don't see the appeal.
 

[Trov]

10 hours ago, Rosterman said:

MLBtrade rumors has mentioned that COlorado is hoping to move some pieces.

The Twins need a closer. Why not?

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/07/rockies-reportedly-open-to-trading-chad-kuhl-alex-colome.html

We could send them Pagan, our wanna be closer, for Colombe, who may be a better second-half pitcher again. Good chance to take? Throw in a Bundy exchange for Kuhl. Maybe sweeten the pot for Colorado with Strotman as a throw-in with a low-level prospect in return.

 

Why would Rockies make deal like this?  Pagan does have another year of control, but I see no reason Rockies would want a rental starter for their starter and a aging pen arm.  

[TwinsDr2021]

10 hours ago, SwainZag said:

I would prefer not bring Colome back.  Too many bad memories of 2021.

Kuhl's numbers this year:

4.02 ERA/4.28 FIP/4.71 xFIP/6.49 K.9/3.4 BB.9

Bundy's numbers:

4.69 ERA/3.92 FIP/4.26 xFIP/6.84 K.9/1.92 BB.9

And Kuhl's numbers are actually better at Colorado than away.    I just don't see the appeal.
 

Not meant as a dig on you, but I find the stat K's per 9 innings a joke (any stat that compares 9 innings), For example Bundy has pitched 9 innings three times in his whole career so how relevant is it how many K's he would have in a hypothetical 9 inning game that he will literally never pitch. It seems like K's per inning is a better stat for about 99% of pitchers, or even a K's per start, off my soap box.

This trade makes no sense to me, trading one 5 inning know what you have pitcher for another 5 inning not sure what you have pitcher and swapping two pen arms doesn't seem like improvement to me.

[tony&rodney]

How would getting two guys we do not want help anything?

[big dog]

Ks per 9 doesn't just mean # of Ks in games where the pitcher goes 9 innings. I assume you know that, just making sure.

If you want to translate K/9 innings into K/inning, you can just multiple K/inning by 9. The ratios will always be the same, You learn nothing from one stat that you don't learn from the other stat.

Pitcher 1 K/9 innings = 6     K/inning = 6/9 = 0.67

Pitcher 2 K/9 innings = 10  K/inning = 10/9 = 1.11

Pitcher 1/Pitcher 2 = 0.6 in either case.

I think a good reason to use K/9 innings is that it is easier for read large numbers vs. fractions, but you learn nothing from having one stat vs. the other. Why is one a better stat 99% of the time when they tell you the same thing?

If you want to include average innings per start or appearance, fine, that's a different and also useful stat.

Ks per start? If a pitcher strikes out 10 in 4 innings but never lasts more than 4 innings, would you really want to measure him the same as a pitcher who strikes out 10 but lasts 7 innings?

 

[big dog]

At least this isn't a thread about bringing CJ Cron back. Although I wouldn't have had the same flashback nightmare from that conversation that I just got by reading about Colombe.

[MMMordabito]

Ctrl+F

"Bard"

0/0

Ctrl+F

"Marquez" 

0/0

Moving on.

[USAFChief]

47 minutes ago, big dog said:

Ks per 9 doesn't just mean # of Ks in games where the pitcher goes 9 innings. I assume you know that, just making sure.

If you want to translate K/9 innings into K/inning, you can just multiple K/inning by 9. The ratios will always be the same, You learn nothing from one stat that you don't learn from the other stat.

Pitcher 1 K/9 innings = 6     K/inning = 6/9 = 0.67

Pitcher 2 K/9 innings = 10  K/inning = 10/9 = 1.11

Pitcher 1/Pitcher 2 = 0.6 in either case.

I think a good reason to use K/9 innings is that it is easier for read large numbers vs. fractions, but you learn nothing from having one stat vs. the other. Why is one a better stat 99% of the time when they tell you the same thing?

If you want to include average innings per start or appearance, fine, that's a different and also useful stat.

Ks per start? If a pitcher strikes out 10 in 4 innings but never lasts more than 4 innings, would you really want to measure him the same as a pitcher who strikes out 10 but lasts 7 innings?

 

Not to mention, K/9 misses an important factor: how many hitters did that pitcher face.

Hypothetically, a pitcher could throw an inning facing a lineup three times, K'ing the 9 hole hitter each time. His K/9 is a gaudy 27, but he gave up 24 runs in that inning.

Conversely, a guy could get three straight pop-ups and have a K/9 of zero, but he had a 1-2-3 inning. Or he K's the first 3 hitters, and has a K/9 of 27...same as the first guy above. 

Not a very useful stat.

Those are extreme examples, of course, and over time K/9 becomes more useful, but K percentage is always a better stat.

[chpettit19]

Yeah, not sure how Kuhl or Colome help the Twins this season. Bard would be a much more preferred target from Colorado.

[big dog]

51 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Not to mention, K/9 misses an important factor: how many hitters did that pitcher face.

Hypothetically, a pitcher could throw an inning facing a lineup three times, K'ing the 9 hole hitter each time. His K/9 is a gaudy 27, but he gave up 24 runs in that inning.

Conversely, a guy could get three straight pop-ups and have a K/9 of zero, but he had a 1-2-3 inning. Or he K's the first 3 hitters, and has a K/9 of 27...same as the first guy above. 

Not a very useful stat.

Those are extreme examples, of course, and over time K/9 becomes more useful, but K percentage is always a better stat.

You mean K percentage of hitters faced, correct? Different from either K/9 or K/inning. Definitely useful, especially so for relievers I would think.

Pagan's K/9 is 12.1  His K/inning is 1.35  40Ks in 29.2 innings so K/out = 40/89 = .45

With 16 walks, 25 hits, and 89 outs, his K % is 40/(89+16+25) = 0.31

Duran, K/9 is 11.1  His K/inning is 1.23  48Ks in 39 innings so K/out = 48/117 = .41

With 9 walks (2 intentional), 29 hits, and 117 outs, his K % is 48/(117+9+29) = 0.32

So in this case, barring any math errors, Pagan has a higher K/9 or K/inning, and a slightly lower K% but it's not nearly the difference I expected.  I am actually pretty surprised by this outcome, I thought Duran would come out quite a bit better with K/hitter.

Someone please calculate this comparison for all pitchers with more than 20 innings and get back to me. Or not.

Edited July 12, 2022 by big dog
typo

[TwinsDr2021]

2 hours ago, big dog said:

Ks per 9 doesn't just mean # of Ks in games where the pitcher goes 9 innings. I assume you know that, just making sure.

I think a good reason to use K/9 innings is that it is easier for read large numbers vs. fractions, but you learn nothing from having one stat vs. the other. Why is one a better stat 99% of the time when they tell you the same thing?

 

Absolutely understand what it means, I don't think it means anything because it isn't like any of the Twins starters (or 99% of all starters) for example are going to throw 9 innings, so it is projection of something that is not very likely going to happen. I can run 6 minute miles in a 5K (I can't) but since it is easier to read large number vs Fractions, I am going to say run a marathon in 2 hours and 24 minutes even though I have never ran a marathon. (Ultimately it makes me look better than I am)

Also it doesn't tell me the same thing, for a pitcher like Bundy who normally throw around 5 innings, what does K per 9 say? That he normally K's about 56% of his K per 9, at least with K's per inning I can times that number by 5 .

Bundy's 6.49 K.9, but his K's per start is 3.8, sure that can be implied by taking the K's per 9 and dividing it, in this day and age I think K's per inning is the only one that makes sense.

(FYI, I am not saying people can't or shouldn't use it, I just think it is a joke, if you or others don't I am OK with that, I will stop talking about now and get back onto how to improve the Twins)

And Back to Colorado the only pitcher on their team I want is Bard, he is a free agent next year to the price shouldn't be that high, Saboato or Strotman, and the high end Sands, Povich or Henriquez.

 

[Cap'n Piranha]

34 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Absolutely understand what it means, I don't think it means anything because it isn't like any of the Twins starters (or 99% of all starters) for example are going to throw 9 innings, so it is projection of something that is not very likely going to happen. I can run 6 minute miles in a 5K (I can't) but since it is easier to read large number vs Fractions, I am going to say run a marathon in 2 hours and 24 minutes even though I have never ran a marathon. (Ultimately it makes me look better than I am)

Also it doesn't tell me the same thing, for a pitcher like Bundy who normally throw around 5 innings, what does K per 9 say? That he normally K's about 56% of his K per 9, at least with K's per inning I can times that number by 5 .

Bundy's 6.49 K.9, but his K's per start is 3.8, sure that can be implied by taking the K's per 9 and dividing it, in this day and age I think K's per inning is the only one that makes sense.

(FYI, I am not saying people can't or shouldn't use it, I just think it is a joke, if you or others don't I am OK with that, I will stop talking about now and get back onto how to improve the Twins)

And Back to Colorado the only pitcher on their team I want is Bard, he is a free agent next year to the price shouldn't be that high, Saboato or Strotman, and the high end Sands, Povich or Henriquez.

 

k/9 is simply a way to allow accurate comparison of past performance between multiple pitchers.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It is not a projection of how many strikeouts a pitcher would get in a hypothetical complete game, it simply allows you to compare a pitcher who's pitched 180 innings to one who's pitched 120.  In that regard, as the other poster pointed out, it is exactly the same as k/inning, so you professing admiration for one, and derision for the other, is fascinating.

[Doctor Gast]

CO is open to trade Colume' and Kuhl which makes me think if CO don't want them why should we? CO should be rebuilding which Bard & Marquez should be available but because of their disillutionment they aren't. So until they wake up, I wouldn't have anything to do with them.

[bean5302]

K/9 is fine and so is BB/9 for me anyway. I prefer them to K% and BB% simply because they're easier for me to quantify at a glance. K% is more abstract because the scales are so narrow like F* vs. C*. Knowing where water boils or freezes isn't all that valuable in day to day life because temperatures across 1/2 the 0-100 scale are irrelevant... as all humans are dead there. How good is 21% vs. 20% vs 23%, etc...

Anyway, I use WHIP a lot because it cuts through a lot of the advanced metrics provides some context for K/9 and BB/9. Sorta like OPS. Imperfect, but good and the scales seem pretty easy.
<1.00 elite
1.00-1.10 excellent
1.11-1.20 good
1.21-1.30 mediocre
1.30-1.40 below average
1.40+ poor
I don't care about a 20 K/9 if a pitcher has a 1.50 WHIP because I know a ton of batters are getting on base and if batters are getting on base, there are going to be runs scored. If batters aren't getting on base, runs aren't going to be scoring. At least not the "crooked numbers" which are the real problem.

[nicksaviking]

I'd pass on the Rockies relievers, the one's that are available don't miss any bats. Daniel Bard, who is reportedly unavailable, has a long historical track record of issuing too many free passes. That seems like a recipe for disaster for this club. 

I could be talked into gambling on German Marquez perhaps. He does seem like the kind of well respected veteran that could get new life by leaving Colorado.

Edit: Sign me up for Marquez. Looks like for some reason he's throwing a crappy sinker at a higher rate than he's ever thrown in his career. Ditching sinkers for high heat two seamers and breaking pitches is one thing the Twins pitching minds seem to agree on. He could be a sneaky and fantastic reclamation pitcher.

[jorgenswest]

It depends on whether you want to look forward or backward, if you want to look back ERA and WPA tell a good story of a players contribution. If you want to look forward K% and BB% have a strong year to year correlation. They are the basis for several varied ERA estimators like FIP and xFIP. I think WHIP fits better in the first category. It correlates well with ERA but does not have a great year to year correlation or correlate well with future ERA.

As for the trade I want the Twins to add to the top of the pen or rotation and push everyone down a slot. Kuhl and Colomé aren’t near that level and not pitchers I want to see starting a game against the Yankees or coming in the 8th to face the middle of the line up. The Twins need to go big and pay up. 

[Mike Sixel]

The Rockies, being the Rockies, say they hope to sign those guys to extensions.....

[nicksaviking]

The Rockies are that meme with the dog burning alive in a house saying 'everything looks fine'.

I'd have just found the meme and copied it here but for some reason that one really annoys me. Plus a meme probably doesn't do justice to the level of profound stubbornness and insanity that club operates by.

[Rosterman]

So, in the end, a team expecting to trade crap for value might just get more toilet paper in exchange? Hopefully two-ply rather than single sheet?

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

The Rockies are that meme with the dog burning alive in a house saying 'everything looks fine'.

I'd have just found the meme and copied it here but for some reason that one really annoys me. Plus a meme probably doesn't do justice to the level of profound stubbornness and insanity that club operates by.

Obligatory