Sonny Gray not too happy with Rocco...

[JD-TWINS]

The other angle on a FRESH guy getting the 5-9 hitters in the 6th instead of starter is because they will be more of a mismatch to the offense vs. the guy who’s throwing pitch 84 - 100 ……..regardless if he has “something special going” that night.

The most durable starter we have in rotation is Mahle, since Ryan is a rookie. Mahle left in the 3rd inning with shoulder fatigue in mid-August. Was on IL in July with the Reds. Almost guaranteed to miss his next start at a minimum.

Paddock, Maeda, Ober, Winder are all guys that are supposed to be helping us in 2022 - all hurt!

Complaining about robotic managers is nice conversation but Archer - Bundy - Gray have all had arm/shoulder/hip/ you name it issues in their careers.

We’re piecing it together & as I’ve said before, if Pagan, Duffey, Smith, occasionally Jax & Thielbar showed up (6-7 more wins, not perfection) we wouldn’t think twice about how the staff is handled!

[tarheeltwinsfan]

2 hours ago, Bradfoot said:

Sonny Gray 2022

1st time thru the batting order 1.56 ERA

2nd time thru the batting order 3.13 ERA

3rd time thru the batting order 8.25 ERA

 

Career

1st time thru the batting order 2.65 ERA

2nd time thru the batting order 3.80 ERA

3rd time thru the batting order 4.88 ERA

 

Sonny Gray's career ERA when facing a batting order for the 3rd time is 4.88.  Emilio Pagan has a 4.87 ERA this season.  Running Sonny Gray out for the 6th inning would be statistically worse than putting Pagan in.

Even though I have stated I would have let Gray pitch more in the 7th inning in his last game, your statistics say he should have been removed.  Thank you for this enlightening post.

[chpettit19]

34 minutes ago, RJA said:

Good post, but I will be a devil's advocate.  I am not a huge Gray fan, but I am not impressed with the list of folks in the system that could take his place. Winder, Ober, Enlow, Paddack, Dobnak, and Canterino (and now maybe Mahle) are all coming off injuries/TJ.  Balazovic, Smeltzer, Henriquez, and Sands have not set the world on fire thus far, particularly Balazovic and Henriquez.  Raya is a ways away, Prielipp we haven't seen yet, and SWR has been off and on this year.  Ryan looks like a 3 or 4 to me unless his secondary stuff improves.  I am not sure there is a number 1, or even a 2 in that list of pitchers.  There are question marks around almost all of people you listed.  That leaves us with the idea that we could pick up a better pitcher on the open market. That may be true but when have the Twins done that in the past?  If things break well for the Twins, things will be ok.  But I am not sure that will happen.  At this point, there are a lot of "will be's" in the minors, and we all know that "will be's" won't always "be be's."

Love your post.  Just putting forth another point of view. 

I agree with you. And that would be why the bigger problem isn't a 34 year old Gray, but that the org hasn't produced anyone better than a 34 year old Gray if nobody on that list is able to do it. I think Mahle is a #2. I think Winder and Paddack can be #3s if their arms allow it. I think Ryan is a #4 on a good staff. And Ober is a solid #5. The rest are all fliers, but the expectation has to be that they're able to develop at least 1 guy who can fill the #3 slot in a good rotation with Ryan and Ober behind them. If we're relying on Sonny Gray at the age of 34 to be better than basically everyone on that list the team is in an awful spot with their rotation. I may not have expressed it well, but that was my point.

If they extend Mahle, and I grant that that is a big if, they should be able to produce 4 major leaguers out of Mahle, Winder, Paddack, Ryan, and Ober. If that's the case we need someone much better than a 34 year old Gray at the front of that rotation. I wouldn't bet on any of the prospects being a #1, but if 2 or 3 can turn into #2-4 types you could have a rotation full of #2 and 3s, hopefully, and that definitely gives you a fighting chance.

A real flier in this rotation talk is Duran. Would they ever consider putting him back in the rotation, or is he locked into a pen role from here on out? He could be a #1 and a rotation of Duran, Mahle, Paddack, Winder, Ryan to start '24 wouldn't look half bad to me.

[chpettit19]

38 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

The FTO/STO/TTO (first time through the order, second time through the order, third time through the order) logic is garbage. A pitcher gets into the TTO. They're pitching a great game and the manager lets the pitcher come back out for the top of the 7th.

The pitcher gives up a walk on a bad ball 4 call and a bloop hit. The manager decides they've seen enough since they've already had the bullpen warming up and they pull the starter. The starter's FIP is now inflated because he wasn't allowed to get the outs for the inning.

and

The middle reliever comes in, gives up a leadoff double which scores 2 and then gets the rest of the outs recorded to end the inning. Now the starter's ERA gets blown up too.

This is why TTO ERA is a crap stat and FIP is sketchy.

This is the MLB median for xFIP in 2022 based on Fangraphs Split Leaderboards.

FTO = xFIP 3.91
STO = xFIP 4.10
TTO = xFIP 4.27

TTO is worse, but there's less difference in TTO vs STO than STO and FTO.

I'd buy it if BA, OBP, Slg, K/9, BB/9, HR/9, K%, WHIP, BABIP, LOB%, FIP, and xFIP all didn't get worse FTO vs STO vs TTO. I mean how many more stats do you need to see league wide get progressively worse each time through the order before it's something to pay attention to? 

 

[TwinsDr2021]

34 minutes ago, Bradfoot said:

Isn't this going to be apparent for all pitchers?  They are always going to be more likely to be forced out of the game by the top of the lineup.  If the 2,3,4 hitters get on base you don't assume he will get the next 3 out just because they are 5,6,7 hitters.  The top of the lineup is more likely to do damage and pitchers are more likely to be pulled when they run into trouble.

If anything this supports pulling him sooner.  He shouldn't be asked to get lit up by the top of the order to get to the bottom of the order a 3rd time. 

 

I admit the 8.25 this year is a small sample size and I try to use his 4.88 career as a better indicator.

Honest question on 3rd time thru the batting order ERA or any time though the order.

If the 7,8,9 hitters get on base (lets say their second time up) and the lead off hitter hits a homer, are the runs the 7,8,9 hitter counted to the second time though or the third time though?

 

As for the question on apparent, I would say that is more of an assumption. For example George Kirby came out in the 6th inning (last night Seattle) with batters 5,6,7 due up he got the first two and was taken out after walking the 7th guy this after giving up two runs in the 5th, those two extra guys he faced helped bring his TTO numbers down as opposed to not letting him start the 6th. In the other game talked about Phillies/Reds, both pitchers came out for the 7th one to face the 6th (walked), 7th, 8th and 9th batter, the other to face the 7,8,9 batters. Both of those pitcher's TTO numbers improved by facing the bottom of the order.

[peterb18]

On 8/17/2022 at 10:15 AM, Brock Beauchamp said:

I don't really want Sonny Gray in 2024 so that seems like a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Tyler Mahle, on the other hand...

You don’t want him back in 2024(which is your opinion)but many of us do. I really like Gray…..fun to watch him work his craft.

[TwinsDr2021]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'd buy it if BA, OBP, Slg, K/9, BB/9, HR/9, K%, WHIP, BABIP, LOB%, FIP, and xFIP all didn't get worse FTO vs STO vs TTO. I mean how many more stats do you need to see league wide get progressively worse each time through the order before it's something to pay attention to? 

 

I am not sure how ERA works in this (see previous post) but out of a 100 hitters that is 3 hits, 1 extra guy on base (2 if you round up) and looking at slugging it seems those extra couple of hits are homers?

With the way people talked I expected the numbers to be way worse, especially since (I assume) the numbers shew heavily to the top of the order guys?

[USAFChief]

5 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Dylan Bundy, yes, the Dylan Bundy with a 4.76 ERA, had an 8 inning start this year because the Twins were winning the game by something in the 9-0 ballpark (won the game 11-1). So, no, the plan is not the plan "no matter what." The Twins score 3 or fewer runs in almost half their games. They don't have a whole bunch of 9-0 ballpark games to let guys go wild in. 

Again, if complete games are your measuring stick you're going to be disappointed in every major league team. They just don't happen anymore. 22 this entire season by any pitchers on any team. Something that hasn't even happened once per team by the time you're halfway through August can't be your measuring stick. As people have shown over and over, the Twins are not far off from the MLB norm in managing starters. They simply aren't. 2 hitters less per start is a problem? 1 out fewer than most every team per start is a problem? This is how baseball does things now. It simply is. We don't have to like it, but we certainly should accept that top guys get to go as long as they can, middle tier guys get a little extra leash into the 3rd time through a lineup, and bottom tier guys get basically no wiggle room once the lineup comes up a 3rd time on any team in major league baseball. The Twins haven't had many top tier guys. Already showed they let Berrios go. In 2020 when Maeda was a stud he was averaging over 6 innings a start. They let good pitchers pitch. They just haven't had many.

I don't think it's accurate to say "everyone else is doing the same thing."

The Twins are tied for 27th in IP per start (4.8.) Only 2 teams below them.

16 teams are averaging at least a half inning more. 8 teams averaging over 5.5 innings per start. Houston is averaging 5.8. Houston has a single pitcher with 20 "quality starts" this year, and it's not Verlander. The Twins have 2 such starts since July 3rd.

Starter innings are down league wide. But the Twins have exaggerated that trend. They're not doing "what everyone is doing."

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I am not sure how ERA works in this (see previous post) but out of a 100 hitters that is 3 hits, 1 extra guy on base (2 if you round up) and looking at slugging it seems those extra couple of hits are homers?

With the way people talked I expected the numbers to be way worse, especially since (I assume) the numbers shew heavily to the top of the order guys?

.236/.310/.380/.690
.249/.311/.412/.723
.266/.325/.447/.772

Teams with .690 or worse OPS this year: Nats, Royals, Reds, Rays, Angels, Marlins, Pirates, Athletics, Tigers

Teams with .690 to .723 OPS this year: Diamondbacks, Orioles, Rangers, Mariners, White Sox, Guardians, Padres, Cubs, Giants, Red Sox

Average team OPS is .708. So between 1st time and 2nd time through the average major league starter goes from treating a lineup like the bottom 9 teams to being hit like an above average team.

Teams between .723 to .772 this year: Brewers, Rockies, Phillies, Mets, Twins, Astros, Cardinals, Blue Jays, Yankees, Braves.

Teams with .772 or better OPS this year: Dodgers.

You don't think those are big swings? 

Average major league starter (and I think we all agree the Twins aren't throwing out many starters that are significantly above average) goes from facing the Royals the first time through to facing the White Sox the second time through to facing the Braves/Dodgers the third time through. Feels awfully significant to me.

[chpettit19]

24 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I don't think it's accurate to say "everyone else is doing the same thing."

The Twins are tied for 27th in IP per start (4.8.) Only 2 teams below them.

16 teams are averaging at least a half inning more. 8 teams averaging over 5.5 innings per start. Houston is averaging 5.8. Houston has a single pitcher with 20 "quality starts" this year, and it's not Verlander. The Twins have 2 such starts since July 3rd.

Starter innings are down league wide. But the Twins have exaggerated that trend. They're not doing "what everyone is doing."

Everyone, or darn close to it, is treating similarly tiered pitchers the same as the Twins. The Twins don't have many, if any, above average pitchers right now. Gray and Ryan had stretches where they were above average and they were going 6 or 7 innings. Since then they haven't been so they aren't.

[kenbuddha]

I don't exactly know what this means...

When talking about TBF (total batters faced) by the starters the Twins are 29th in the league. On the flip side, our entire staff is 6th in the league in fewest TBF. That's pretty efficient, no? That seems to indicate we're doing something right. Limiting the opponents to the fewest chances seems to be significant.

[TwinsDr2021]

5 minutes ago, kenbuddha said:

I don't exactly know what this means...

When talking about TBF (total batters faced) by the starters the Twins are 29th in the league. On the flip side, our entire staff is 6th in the league in fewest TBF. That's pretty efficient, no? That seems to indicate we're doing something right. Limiting the opponents to the fewest chances seems to be significant.

It means they face less batters, thus they pitch less innings and this is proven by being 28th in the league in starter innings.

If they were in the middle or top half it could mean they are more efficient.

[TwinsDr2021]

38 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

.236/.310/.380/.690
.249/.311/.412/.723
.266/.325/.447/.772

Teams with .690 or worse OPS this year: Nats, Royals, Reds, Rays, Angels, Marlins, Pirates, Athletics, Tigers

Teams with .690 to .723 OPS this year: Diamondbacks, Orioles, Rangers, Mariners, White Sox, Guardians, Padres, Cubs, Giants, Red Sox

Average team OPS is .708. So between 1st time and 2nd time through the average major league starter goes from treating a lineup like the bottom 9 teams to being hit like an above average team.

Teams between .723 to .772 this year: Brewers, Rockies, Phillies, Mets, Twins, Astros, Cardinals, Blue Jays, Yankees, Braves.

Teams with .772 or better OPS this year: Dodgers.

You don't think those are big swings? 

Average major league starter (and I think we all agree the Twins aren't throwing out many starters that are significantly above average) goes from facing the Royals the first time through to facing the White Sox the second time through to facing the Braves/Dodgers the third time through. Feels awfully significant to me.

Brendan Rodgers of Colorado (.285/.338/.434/.772), Sean Murphy of Oakland (..251/.327/.450/.777), J.T. Realmuto (.258/.331/.436/.767) are the closest comparison to players to the TTO numbers.

Jesus Aguilar, Kepler, Gurriel are examples of FTO.

I hardly think it is fair to say facing a third time though is like facing Freeman, Betts, Turner and Smith every batter.

Comparing what teams averages are doesn't make any sense what so ever to me in this context, I can't actually grasp the logic behind it.

It makes me feel either you or the Twins can't grasp these numbers, because ever single Twins starter (minus Archer) averages facing the top 3/4 in the order every game and barely if ever above that, So they are letting the best hitters on the other team have a third go round with the Twins average at best starters then taking them out against the worst hitters? How in the world does that make any sense? It is like they are stacking the deck against their own pitchers or intentionally doing something to make them look worse?

 

 

[chpettit19]

7 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Brendan Rodgers of Colorado (.285/.338/.434/.772), Sean Murphy of Oakland (..251/.327/.450/.777), J.T. Realmuto (.258/.331/.436/.767) are the closest comparison to players to the TTO numbers.

Jesus Aguilar, Kepler, Gurriel are examples of FTO.

I hardly think it is fair to say facing a third time though is like facing Freeman, Betts, Turner and Smith every batter.

Comparing what teams averages are doesn't make any sense what so ever to me in this context, I can't actually grasp the logic behind it.

It makes me feel either you or the Twins can't grasp these numbers, because ever single Twins starter (minus Archer) averages facing the top 3/4 in the order every game and barely if ever above that, So they are letting the best hitters on the other team have a third go round with the Twins average at best starters then taking them out against the worst hitters? How in the world does that make any sense? It is like they are stacking the deck against their own pitchers or intentionally doing something to make them look worse?

 

 

Are you asking the pitcher to get 1 out in the 6th or 7th or are you asking them to navigate a lineup in the 6th or 7th to be able to get through the entire inning? That's the logic. I'm not just trying to get Rodgers or Murphy out 1 time, I'm trying to get a combination of hitters out. Thus I compare it to a combination of hitters.

And it's not just Twins starters. It's the average major league starter. So you're failing to understand how the entire baseball industry decides to do what they do. As has been shown time and time again, the Twins are treating their starters the same way basically every team treats starters of this talent level. So maybe its not me or the Twins not grasping the numbers since it's the baseball industry as a whole who decides they mean a certain thing. I mean MLB is literally putting rules in place to get teams to use starters longer. Feels odd that anyone thinks MLB cares so much about starter length when it's just the Twins doing this...

[TwinsDr2021]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Are you asking the pitcher to get 1 out in the 6th or 7th or are you asking them to navigate a lineup in the 6th or 7th to be able to get through the entire inning? That's the logic. I'm not just trying to get Rodgers or Murphy out 1 time, I'm trying to get a combination of hitters out. Thus I compare it to a combination of hitters.

That is the question, if you are going to let your starter pitch the 5th against batters 1-4, why then all of sudden start throwing out TTO int he 6th, which I think everybody assumes are less batters than 1 - 4?

Maybe we don't have all the numbers, and the top few guys in the lineup don't benefit from seeing a guy a third time, because they are so good every time or pitchers work them different and a third time isn't really an advantage and it is the lesser hitters that improve from seeing a pitcher the third time? I mean that isn't' what people are saying but maybe what the teams are doing?

11 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Feels odd that anyone thinks MLB cares so much about starter length when it's just the Twins doing this...

I feel pretty comfortable saying that nobody has said that, But based on the numbers the Twins are doing something a bit different. I mean when 24 different pitchers in the last two days have faced 25 or more guys (two days in a row against the twins) and the Twins have done it 11 times all year, you have to admit something is happening. Dane Dunning (who?) just did it for the 7th time today.

[chpettit19]

36 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

It means they face less batters, thus they pitch less innings and this is proven by being 28th in the league in starter innings.

If they were in the middle or top half it could mean they are more efficient.

I think you're misunderstanding what @kenbuddha was saying. The Twins starters are 29th in baseball in hitters faced. That does mean they are facing fewer batters. But as an entire staff they are 25th in batters faced.

Your whole thing about fewer batters faced means fewer innings pitched isn't actually correct. If I face 10 guys and get 3 out I pitched 1 inning. If I face 3 guys and get all 3 out I pitched 1 inning. So is it better that my manager let me face 10 batters just so he can say he let me face more batters? I didn't go any deeper in the game by facing that many hitters. It's why hitters faced isn't an ideal stat.

Draw what conclusions you want from this, but here's the Twins rankings in batters faced per inning (lower obviously being better):
Starters: 10th fewest batters faced per inning (4.18)
Relievers: 16th fewest batters faced per inning (4.21)
Staff: 12th fewest batters faced per inning (4.19)

[kenbuddha]

51 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

It means they face less batters, thus they pitch less innings and this is proven by being 28th in the league in starter innings.

If they were in the middle or top half it could mean they are more efficient.

Lol. Yes I realize what it means for the starters, but what I believe what it means as a staff is they face fewer batters. So, being 6th in the league, our pitching staff is much more efficient than the rest of the league.

[LA VIkes Fan]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I'd buy it if BA, OBP, Slg, K/9, BB/9, HR/9, K%, WHIP, BABIP, LOB%, FIP, and xFIP all didn't get worse FTO vs STO vs TTO. I mean how many more stats do you need to see league wide get progressively worse each time through the order before it's something to pay attention to? 

 

It used to be said that the difference between an "Ace" or "#1 Starter" and a mid-rotation guy was whether or not they could be effective that 3rd time through the order or during pitches 90 – 120. I frankly don't think anything's changed much at all. What's happened is that the analytics have shown us that this general rule of thumb from days of yore was actually pretty accurate. We now have the statistics to back up how most pitchers are much less effective either the 3rd time through the order or after 90-100 pitches. Those that are effective than are making $25m a year on long term contracts. 

I think the real issue with the Twins is that we don't have that "Ace" or number 1 or 2 starter unless its Mahle and it's too early to tell with him, particularly with the shoulder fatigue issue cropping up again. I don't think the problem is the FO or manager pulling the starting pitchers too early at all. I think their performance shows that we are doing the right thing for the most part with Gray and Ryan. Same goes for Bundy and Archer, who tend to fall apart after either 5 innings or 65-70 pitches so they get an even shorter leash. I think Baldelli is actually handling the starters correctly overall, although he does need to do a better job of giving a longer leash to at least Gray and Ryan in that one start over out of every 3 or 4 when they really appear to be "on their game" with both low pitch counts and good results.

To echo many here, I think the real problem is that if you are going to handle starters this way it is incumbent upon you to have 1 or 2 multi-inning relief pinchers available to pitch at least every 2nd or 3rd day, and then to actually use them that way. I actually think that we do have a couple of those guys in the bullpen now in Jax and Sands, maybe Megill, and after yesterday maybe even Pagan could be one of those guys in a pinch. We also have Jharel Cotton, Aaron Sanchez and Devin Smeltzer in AAA who are possible candidates for this role. I know we need to keep at least 1 of the last 3 them stretched out as a starter for injury insurance but no reason not to try the others in long relief and maybe even as a shuttle since no one seems to want to pick them up when they are DFA'd. 

To me, this is the real failure of Rocco and the  FO. When you commit to not exposing or starters that 3rd time through the order or over 90 pitches, you have to have multi-inning relievers or piggyback starters available. We don't and this is where the failure is. The good news is that is easily addressable by just letting your existing relievers go longer, like Baldelli did Wednesday out of necessity with Pagan and Jax, or altering your bullpen mix by adding in failed starters with promise like Cotton, Smeltzer, Sands and Sanchez instead of a bullpen of all short relievers. Most failed starters are guys who look great for 2-4 innings and then fall apart. Perfect long men. I know they don't like it because starters get paid a whole lot more but frankly these guys are with Twins AAA team because no one was out there giving them a starter contract. Realign your bullpen mix to have the long men available, at least 2 of them since they can't pitch every day and will need at least a day or 2 between outings, and the starter strategy probably works better. Otherwise, you burn out a bullpen of short guys and have meltdowns in late innings.

[chpettit19]

10 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

That is the question, if you are going to let your starter pitch the 5th against batters 1-4, why then all of sudden start throwing out TTO int he 6th, which I think everybody assumes are less batters than 1 - 4?

Maybe we don't have all the numbers, and the top few guys in the lineup don't benefit from seeing a guy a third time, because they are so good every time or pitchers work them different and a third time isn't really an advantage and it is the lesser hitters that improve from seeing a pitcher the third time? I mean that isn't' what people are saying but maybe what the teams are doing?

I feel pretty comfortable saying that nobody has said that, But based on the numbers the Twins are doing something a bit different. I mean when 24 different pitchers in the last two days have faced 25 or more guys (two days in a row against the twins) and the Twins have done it 11 times all year, you have to admit something is happening. Dane Dunning (who?) just did it for the 7th time today.

They generally aren't facing hitters 1-4 in the 5th. Maybe that's the disconnect here. They're usually facing the bottom of the order. 8-9-1 most typically. 3 hole hitters have 1565 PAs in the 5th inning this year vs 1792 in the 6th for example. The heart of the order comes up in the 6th far more often than the 5th. You combine that with team's desires to bring guys into a clean inning instead of having to try to clean up a mess and you get a lot of pitching changes after the 5th.

Again, batters faced is not a good stat to be going off. The 2 games in a row that a pitcher did that against the Twins they lost the game. Outs matter, not batters faced.

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

It used to be said that the difference between an "Ace" or "#1 Starter" and a mid-rotation guy was whether or not they could be effective that 3rd time through the order or during pitches 90 – 120. I frankly don't think anything's changed much at all. What's happened is that the analytics have shown us that this general rule of thumb from days of yore was actually pretty accurate. We now have the statistics to back up how most pitchers are much less effective either the 3rd time through the order or after 90-100 pitches. Those that are effective than are making $25m a year on long term contracts. 

I think the real issue with the twins is that we don't have that "Ace" or number 1 or 2 starter unless its Mahle and it's too early to tell with him, particularly with the shoulder fatigue issue cropping up again. I don't think the problem is the FO or manager pulling the starting pitchers too early at all. I think their performance shows that we are doing the right thing fir the most part with Gray and Ryan. Same goes for Bundy and Archer, who tend to fall apart after either 5 innings or 65-70 pitches so they get an even shorter leash. I think Baldelli is actually handling the starters correctly overall, although he does need to do a better job of giving a longer leash to at least Gray and Ryan in that one start over out of every 3 or 4 when they really appear to be "on their game" with both low pitch counts and good results.

To echo many here, I think the real problem is that if you are going to handle starters this way it is incumbent upon you to have 1 or 2 multi-inning relief pinchers available to pitch at least every 2nd or 3rd day, and then to actually use them that way. I actually think that we do have a couple of those guys in the bullpen now in Jax and Sands, maybe Megill, and after yesterday maybe even Pagan could be one of those guys in a pinch. We also have Jharel Cotton, Aaron Sanchez and Devin Smeltzer in AAA who are possible candidates for this role. I know we need to keep at least 1 of them stretched out as a starter but no reason not to try the others and maybe even as a shuttle since no one seems to want to pick them up when they are DFA'd. 

To me, this is the real failure of Rocco and the  FO. When you commit to not exposing or starters that 3rd time through the order or over 90 pitches, you have to have multi-inning relievers or piggyback starters available. We don't and this is where the failure is. The good news is that is easily addressable by just letting your existing relievers go longer, like Baldelli did Wednesday out of necessity with Pagan and Jax, or altering your bullpen mix by adding in failed starters with promise like Cotton, Smeltzer, Sands and Sanchez instead of a bullpen of all short relievers. Most failed starters are guys who look great for 2-4 innings and then fall apart. Perfect long men. I know they don't like it because starters get paid a whole lot more but frankly these guys are with Twins AAA team because no one was out there giving them a starter contract. Realign your bullpen mix to have the long men available, at least 2 of them ince they can't pitch every day and will need at least a day or 2 between outings, and the starter strategy probably works better. Otherwise, you burn out a bullpen of short guys and have meltdowns in late innings.

I'm with you 100%.

[bean5302]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I'd buy it if BA, OBP, Slg, K/9, BB/9, HR/9, K%, WHIP, BABIP, LOB%, FIP, and xFIP all didn't get worse FTO vs STO vs TTO. I mean how many more stats do you need to see league wide get progressively worse each time through the order before it's something to pay attention to? 

 

Me: FTO is better than STO is better than TTO, but it doesn't make a huge difference and ERA is a terrible way of looking at it because of inherited base runners being allowed to score and FIP is a little sketchy because pitcher's get yanked quickly when they'd normally be able to record a couple more outs and pitch out of the jam.

You: FTO is better than STO is better than TTO and there are a whole bunch of metrics that prove it.

Me: <slaps forehead> Yes. Like I said...

4.23 vs. 4.10. Who cares? That 0.13 xFIP is the reason to yank guys who could go another 1-3 innings? That's the reason? Because they'll give up 1 additional run per 70 additional innings pitched? I'd be happy to trade 3 earned runs this year for a boost to our starter's WAR/innings by 20-60%

Starters earn their spot on the team by starting games, not opening games. If Falvey signed "openers" for the money he's spending on Gray and Bundy, it's just another strike against his philosophy this year.

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Everyone, or darn close to it, is treating similarly tiered pitchers the same as the Twins. The Twins don't have many, if any, above average pitchers right now. Gray and Ryan had stretches where they were above average and they were going 6 or 7 innings. Since then they haven't been so they aren't.

This. The Twins don't have a number one, and maybe have one number 2 right now. If they had better pitchers, they'd go longer into games.

[Mike Sixel]

11 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Me: FTO is better than STO is better than TTO, but it doesn't make a huge difference and ERA is a terrible way of looking at it because of inherited base runners being allowed to score and FIP is a little sketchy because pitcher's get yanked quickly when they'd normally be able to record a couple more outs and pitch out of the jam.

You: FTO is better than STO is better than TTO and there are a whole bunch of metrics that prove it.

Me: <slaps forehead> Yes. Like I said...

4.23 vs. 4.10. Who cares? That 0.13 xFIP is the reason to yank guys who could go another 1-3 innings? That's the reason? Because they'll give up 1 additional run per 70 additional innings pitched? I'd be happy to trade 3 earned runs this year for a boost to our starter's WAR/innings by 20-60%

Starters earn their spot on the team by starting games, not opening games. If Falvey signed "openers" for the money he's spending on Gray and Bundy, it's just another strike against his philosophy this year.

That's league wide, and includes the pitchers that go longer (most of which are much better pitcher than Twins' pitchers). If the Twins had a number one, he'd go longer......

[chpettit19]

12 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Me: FTO is better than STO is better than TTO, but it doesn't make a huge difference and ERA is a terrible way of looking at it because of inherited base runners being allowed to score and FIP is a little sketchy because pitcher's get yanked quickly when they'd normally be able to record a couple more outs and pitch out of the jam.

You: FTO is better than STO is better than TTO and there are a whole bunch of metrics that prove it.

Me: <slaps forehead> Yes. Like I said...

4.23 vs. 4.10. Who cares? That 0.13 xFIP is the reason to yank guys who could go another 1-3 innings? That's the reason? Because they'll give up 1 additional run per 70 additional innings pitched? I'd be happy to trade 3 earned runs this year for a boost to our starter's WAR/innings by 20-60%

Starters earn their spot on the team by starting games, not opening games. If Falvey signed "openers" for the money he's spending on Gray and Bundy, it's just another strike against his philosophy this year.

"The FTO/STO/TTO (first time through the order, second time through the order, third time through the order) logic is garbage."

I'm sorry you chose to ignore the rest of the logic and just point to ERA and FIP. I decided maybe you needed to look at more of the logic beyond your 1 hypothetical that sets up the story you want while ignoring the fact that the entirety of the logic doesn't point to starters giving up a "bad call ball 4" and a "bloop hit." 

Your argument against 12 stats is 1 stat. I'm sorry the baseball industry hasn't tied their wagon to xFIP at the expense of 12 other pitching stats that say you're wrong.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

Me: FTO is better than STO is better than TTO, but it doesn't make a huge difference and ERA is a terrible way of looking at it because of inherited base runners being allowed to score and FIP is a little sketchy because pitcher's get yanked quickly when they'd normally be able to record a couple more outs and pitch out of the jam.

You: FTO is better than STO is better than TTO and there are a whole bunch of metrics that prove it.

Me: <slaps forehead> Yes. Like I said...

4.23 vs. 4.10. Who cares? That 0.13 xFIP is the reason to yank guys who could go another 1-3 innings? That's the reason? Because they'll give up 1 additional run per 70 additional innings pitched? I'd be happy to trade 3 earned runs this year for a boost to our starter's WAR/innings by 20-60%

Starters earn their spot on the team by starting games, not opening games. If Falvey signed "openers" for the money he's spending on Gray and Bundy, it's just another strike against his philosophy this year.

Here's some more fun data:
Relievers as a whole (so including Duffey and Pagan types) vs TTO as a whole. The relievers win in HR/9, K%, K-BB%, AVG, WHIP, BABIP, LOB%, ERA, FIP, xFIP, GB/FB, LD%, GB%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, Pull%, Cent%, Oppo%, Soft%, and Hard%.

So counting stats are better. Batted ball data is better. Overall results are better.

Gosh, I really just can't figure out why teams would want to use the average reliever over the average starter a 3rd time. The logic is clearly garbage. I mean most teams use 30 pitchers a year so there's no way they'd have enough arms to survive such a thing. I mean I guess the best pitching staff in baseball has only used 28 pitchers so it's really not quite 30.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

2 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Me: FTO is better than STO is better than TTO, but it doesn't make a huge difference and ERA is a terrible way of looking at it because of inherited base runners being allowed to score and FIP is a little sketchy because pitcher's get yanked quickly when they'd normally be able to record a couple more outs and pitch out of the jam.

You: FTO is better than STO is better than TTO and there are a whole bunch of metrics that prove it.

Me: <slaps forehead> Yes. Like I said...

4.23 vs. 4.10. Who cares? That 0.13 xFIP is the reason to yank guys who could go another 1-3 innings? That's the reason? Because they'll give up 1 additional run per 70 additional innings pitched? I'd be happy to trade 3 earned runs this year for a boost to our starter's WAR/innings by 20-60%

Starters earn their spot on the team by starting games, not opening games. If Falvey signed "openers" for the money he's spending on Gray and Bundy, it's just another strike against his philosophy this year.

What was that about inherited runners again?

[notoriousgod71]

10 hours ago, Bradfoot said:

Sonny Gray 2022

1st time thru the batting order 1.56 ERA

2nd time thru the batting order 3.13 ERA

3rd time thru the batting order 8.25 ERA

 

Career

1st time thru the batting order 2.65 ERA

2nd time thru the batting order 3.80 ERA

3rd time thru the batting order 4.88 ERA

 

Sonny Gray's career ERA when facing a batting order for the 3rd time is 4.88.  Emilio Pagan has a 4.87 ERA this season.  Running Sonny Gray out for the 6th inning would be statistically worse than putting Pagan in.

Just imagine pagan going through a lineup the third time... Which might be the same inning.

[TwinsDr2021]

13 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

That's league wide, and includes the pitchers that go longer (most of which are much better pitcher than Twins' pitchers). If the Twins had a number one, he'd go longer......

I love this statement, because it has been pointed out in this thread and others that what you said is not 100% true (absolutely teams treat starting pitchers very similiar and in some cases exactly the same as the Twins and I could point out multiple examples from any random night this season),

But it also has been proven that pitchers on other teams on a nightly basis do face more batters pitch more pitches per start or more innings per game and earlier in the thread I posted the names of some of these pitchers and it isn't only the top few pitchers in the league and then the comeback is the Twins pitchers just are not good enough or they don't have a number 1 instead of just agreeing that yes the twins are doing something the league is doing but to more extreme way.

I don't understand if you believe this how you are not calling for heads to roll in this front office? How many years have they run the Twins and they haven't came up with 1 starting pitcher that is even a bit better than league average?

(When has the likes of Keller, Lynch, Martin Perez, Dane Dunning became #1 types?)

 

 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

(When has the likes of Keller, Lynch, Martin Perez, Dane Dunning became #1 types?)

Keller and Lynch lost their games. They're playing for a team that traded their best players and called up all their top prospects (which is what most of us were mad the Twins didn't do last year) to get them ready for next season. You're ignoring a whole lot of context there. The Twins and Royals have very different goals right now.

Martin Perez is 13th amongst qualified starters in all of baseball in ERA this season. So I guess he became a #1 type this season when he was an All Star. Not to mention he's also pitching on a team that's not exactly in the playoff fight right now.

Dane Dunning had an 8-2 lead going into the 7th when he was pulled with fewer than 100 pitches thrown. Ignoring a whole lot of context there, too. His start before that he threw 4.1 innings. Got to go 7 the start before that when he again had a big lead (8-0). His 20(!) starts before that he'd eclipsed 91 pitches 5 times. And one of those was 93 pitches. Dylan Bundy has eclipsed 91 pitches in 3 of 20 starts for reference.

[TwinsDr2021]

37 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Keller and Lynch lost their games. They're playing for a team that traded their best players and called up all their top prospects (which is what most of us were mad the Twins didn't do last year) to get them ready for next season. You're ignoring a whole lot of context there. The Twins and Royals have very different goals right now.

Martin Perez is 13th amongst qualified starters in all of baseball in ERA this season. So I guess he became a #1 type this season when he was an All Star. Not to mention he's also pitching on a team that's not exactly in the playoff fight right now.

Dane Dunning had an 8-2 lead going into the 7th when he was pulled with fewer than 100 pitches thrown. Ignoring a whole lot of context there, too. His start before that he threw 4.1 innings. Got to go 7 the start before that when he again had a big lead (8-0). His 20(!) starts before that he'd eclipsed 91 pitches 5 times. And one of those was 93 pitches. Dylan Bundy has eclipsed 91 pitches in 3 of 20 starts for reference.

So we are talking pitches per start now and team records, young guys? I thought it was about TTO, limiting exposure? The goal posts seem to move every time something that might go against this comes up.

The argument that Keller and lynch doesn't hold water, because I could point out game after game, where teams lost pulling the pitcher one inning earlier or facing less batters than Lynch or Keller, and just as many games where they pitcher went the same amount of innings or batters faced as Lynch and Keller and didn't give up any runs.

I use Dan Dunning as an example because he basically is a 27 year old no name pitcher that has been allowed to face 25 batters or more 8 times this year (Which is 3 less than the whole Twins pitching staff). His team is 3 - 5 in those starts one was 3 -1 win, one was a 5-3 loss, one was a 6-5 loss, was one a 2 -1 loss, one was a 7-6 loss in extra innings, these are not blow outs ( 4 of them were prior to June 4th, so they weren't out of contention at that point)

He averages more pitches per start, more innings per start and more batters faced per start than any Twins Starter, and my guess is if you asked most people on TD if they would trade him straight up for Ryan or Gray the answer would be a He!! no.

Why is it so hard to people to admit how the Twins are treating their starters this year is mostly the same as everybody else but more extreme? And if the answer is because the Twins pitchers just aren't as good, we should be hammering on this FO, shouldn't we be? I mean how many years does it take to find one guy, just one like Dunning (or the dozens of other pitchers doing similiar things for example?

I mean the Texas Rangers are paying Perez 4 million dollars to do things the Twins pitchers can only dream of doing? and yet the Twins are paying Bundy more, Archer just 500K less, They traded a first round pick to get Gray and their best pitching prospect/Rookie has completed 5 2/3 innings in 5 of his last 15 starts.