Just thinking out loud, if the Twins continue with their current methodology...

[Original_JB]

regarding pitching, and their propensity for dumpster diving for pitchers on the cheap (diamonds in the rough), might it be prudent to lock in 2 or 3 of the best (efficient) long relievers over the last couple years and see if we can stretch them out to 4 inning starters? (I know, I hate the concept, but it seems that they want a staff of guys who can all go 3-4 innings). And if not, we seem to need a pile of long relievers anyway.  One would think we should be able to do it on the cheap which always seems to be a FO plus. Let's see those high end evaluation skills Falvine.

[nicksaviking]

22 minutes ago, Original_JB said:

regarding pitching, and their propensity for dumpster diving for pitchers on the cheap (diamonds in the rough), might it be prudent to lock in 2 or 3 of the best (efficient) long relievers over the last couple years and see if we can stretch them out to 4 inning starters? (I know, I hate the concept, but it seems that they want a staff of guys who can all go 3-4 innings). And if not, we seem to need a pile of long relievers anyway.  One would think we should be able to do it on the cheap which always seems to be a FO plus. Let's see those high end evaluation skills Falvine.

I think the problem with relievers, is that you can't count on them for 2-3 years. Not only are they unpredictable in general, but a change in ballpark, a change in manager, a change in team, heck maybe even a change in the city might be all it takes to butterfly effect their decline. TB dumpster dived most of their pen, including about a half dozen ex Twins and it worked for them. The Twins bought two of the three best relievers available at the deadline and it backfired. 

Should the team try to improve in the relief department? Clearly. But I don't think any relief acquisitions should be counted on and assumed to be a fix for the problem.

[tony&rodney]

Adding a couple of guys like Edwin Diaz (longer contract) and David Robertson (shorter deal) would be decent acquisitions. I think they can be counted on to be good too.

[SwainZag]

1 hour ago, Original_JB said:

regarding pitching, and their propensity for dumpster diving for pitchers on the cheap (diamonds in the rough), might it be prudent to lock in 2 or 3 of the best (efficient) long relievers over the last couple years and see if we can stretch them out to 4 inning starters? (I know, I hate the concept, but it seems that they want a staff of guys who can all go 3-4 innings). And if not, we seem to need a pile of long relievers anyway.  One would think we should be able to do it on the cheap which always seems to be a FO plus. Let's see those high end evaluation skills Falvine.

They already have 9 starters who should be in the mix for opening day roster with Ryan, Gray, Maeda, Mahle, Ober, Winder, Varland, SWR and Sands.  I highly doubt we see any "dumpster diving" for starters this year, unless there are trades or multiple injuries/set backs between now and Opening Day.  Though I could see a bigger portion or starting caliber pitchers making the roster over 1 inning backend type relievers in the future.

[Riverbrian]

In my opinion... Yes

I simply don't care about boxes. I don't need the designations like starter, long reliever, reliever, set up or closer. 

To me it's simple. I want 13 guys who can pitch Period. Those who pitch better should get more innings. I don't care where they enter a game. Boxes just limit what is possible. 

If that means stretching those who are currently designated as a reliever to 2 or 3 or 4 innings... do it. If that means someone who is currently designated as a starter enters the game in the 4 inning... do it. 

I am well past the days of Starters throw 6 and relievers throw 1 inning. It can be any combination necessary and at any point in the game. If Pitcher A who is currently designated as a reliever is better than Pitcher B who is currently designated as a starter... Pitcher A should get more innings because he is better. 

I realize that this thought is going to be immediately dismissed and disturbing to many. I offer it regardless. 

[TwinsDr2021]

50 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

In my opinion... Yes

I simply don't care about boxes. I don't need the designations like starter, long reliever, reliever, set up or closer. 

To me it's simple. I want 13 guys who can pitch Period. Those who pitch better should get more innings. I don't care where they enter a game. Boxes just limit what is possible. 

If that means stretching those who are currently designated as a reliever to 2 or 3 or 4 innings... do it. If that means someone who is currently designated as a starter enters the game in the 4 inning... do it. 

I am well past the days of Starters throw 6 and relievers throw 1 inning. It can be any combination necessary and at any point in the game. If Pitcher A who is currently designated as a reliever is better than Pitcher B who is currently designated as a starter... Pitcher A should get more innings because he is better. 

I realize that this thought is going to be immediately dismissed and disturbing to many. I offer it regardless. 

In theory this would be the best way to build a pitching staff correct? The problem IMO comes from this would have to be done at an organizational level and now brings players emotions and salaries into the question. It would basically require building a staff with lower round picks or drafting seniors with no leverage and cast offs. No agent worth anything is going to have a top end prospect sign with a team that won't guarantee that he will be given every chance to be a traditional starter. I also think if a team decided to do this the Union would be up in arms about a team limiting players earning potential. It also becomes difficult to determine the rest time between pitching if you have gone 3 to 4 innings. It doesn't seem possible to give the pitchers their 4 to 5 days off if they have only went 4 innings, it seems like a wasted roster spot. Also unless MLB changes the 5 inning start rule no really good or even just good starting type pitcher is going to want to be part of this. Sure there may be failed starters like Bundy that is willing to something like this for millions of dollars but is that really the type of pitcher that helps winning teams?

I will also add I believe this will kill attendance.

With that I think this can be done and should be done with the back end of a rotation or grooming younger pitchers into a more traditional role.

[Original_JB]

And maybe "dumpster diving" isn't the most apt way of looking at this, more of a "Moneyball" sort of thing, where you can take advantage of certain "inefficiencies" in the league in some ways, in this case, the fact that "long relievers" aren't necessarily super coveted or highly paid. As for the comments about wasted roster spots/days off, Starters (who throw 100 pitches, be it in 4 or 8 innings) in theory need the 5 days off between starts; your closers and 1 inning guys can go a couple days in a row but essentially need a day or two off between usages; OK, so your 50-55 pitch 4 inning guy needs 3 days off between usage. There, that wasn't so hard. With the relievers blowing up their arms throwing so hard, maybe ease back a titch, go 3-4 innings and stay injury free?

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

In theory this would be the best way to build a pitching staff correct? The problem IMO comes from this would have to be done at an organizational level and now brings players emotions and salaries into the question. It would basically require building a staff with lower round picks or drafting seniors with no leverage and cast offs. No agent worth anything is going to have a top end prospect sign with a team that won't guarantee that he will be given every chance to be a traditional starter. I also think if a team decided to do this the Union would be up in arms about a team limiting players earning potential. It also becomes difficult to determine the rest time between pitching if you have gone 3 to 4 innings. It doesn't seem possible to give the pitchers their 4 to 5 days off if they have only went 4 innings, it seems like a wasted roster spot. Also unless MLB changes the 5 inning start rule no really good or even just good starting type pitcher is going to want to be part of this. Sure there may be failed starters like Bundy that is willing to something like this for millions of dollars but is that really the type of pitcher that helps winning teams?

I will also add I believe this will kill attendance.

With that I think this can be done and should be done with the back end of a rotation or grooming younger pitchers into a more traditional role.

I agree with you. I think you are absolutely right. My suggestion has inherent implementation issues right out of the gate.

The current compensation system is set up for the conventional ways. At the arbitration table, saves are compensated at a higher dollar figure than holds. Average starters make more money than elite closers in arb and free agency. While you adjust your team to the new... there will be 29 teams setting the market with the old. Agents are going to demand the closer roles for their clients if you want to sign them because of the compensation disparity. This type of thinking has enemies guarding the door. 

It's a problem. I don't have the knowledge to fix it... just an utopian idea but one that is worth striving for because there is really no need for the self-induced limitations of the typical pitching structure. I believe it's possible that busting out of it could be advantageous.     

From my outsiders view (which is worthless because I've never been in the room to understand the room). The implementation issues are almost entirely based around compensation so to overcome that... the club would have to compensate.

Innings pitched is the key...  Those that throw the most innings would be entitled to higher compensation just like the starters are compensated higher in the traditional way. My way too simple, seed of an idea without nuance rewards your BEST pitchers regardless of designation more innings and therefore higher compensation. 

There were 1437 innings thrown by the Twins staff this year. Jhoan Duran threw 67.2 of them, Emilio Pagan threw 63 of them. The effectiveness difference between these two is grand canyon sized, yet the traditional structure keeps the utilization comparable. There should be an innings pitched difference between these two pitchers that matches performance. 

As for the rest required. They are smart people... they can figure that out. As far as I'm concerned it's a blank slate because whatever they are trying to do to keep pitchers healthy is clearly NOT working. 

As for the fans and attendance issues. I don't believe that is true and if it was true... that demonstration of fickleness would suggest that baseball has bigger issues than this in order to save the sport. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

7 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

 

I will also add I believe this will kill attendance.

Why?

what drives attendance today?

what about this setup would reduce attendance? Reduced star power in the rotation? Does Sonny Gray bring in tons of ticket sales?

in 2022 length of game reduced my attendance. With 5+ pitchers used over 4 hours…. Brutal….

knock that down to 2 or 3 pitchers per game again. Like the good old days so many people wax nostalgically for, only 5 and 4 innings instead of 8 and 1.

im totally behind the “out getters” phrase used by Counsell

[TwinsDr2021]

8 hours ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

Why?

what drives attendance today?

what about this setup would reduce attendance? Reduced star power in the rotation? Does Sonny Gray bring in tons of ticket sales?

in 2022 length of game reduced my attendance. With 5+ pitchers used over 4 hours…. Brutal….

knock that down to 2 or 3 pitchers per game again. Like the good old days so many people wax nostalgically for, only 5 and 4 innings instead of 8 and 1.

im totally behind the “out getters” phrase used by Counsell

Maybe Kill attendance was too strong of word, greatly reduce might have been better.

Name recognition is probably number 1, talk to people from Tampa on why they don't go to watch games (Coming off of two straight division titles)

One reason people go to games to see great players do great things and when you eliminate the possibly of that happening on the pitching side this can cause people to not show up. I have a 14 year old son who likes going to games, at least a half dozen times this year he said to me lets go to the Twins game and after we looked up who was starting he would (I always seemed like Archer or Bundy) say forget it. His baseball team had a morning game and bunch of the kids decided they wanted to go to the games so a few of us Dad's agreed, one kid asked if Buxton was playing and we looked up the starting lineup and it was a Day with no Buxton, Correa and I believe Polanco and Bundy was pitching and the kids decided they would rather go to the pool.  This is a small sample, but in all the Twin Cities only so many people go to Twins games and if conversations like this are happening  to people I know I assume it is a happening in other places.

People like buying Jersey's of players, are people going to buy the jersey just another pitcher, I don't think so, I don't see Duran jerseys flying off the shelf and they should be he is amazing, but until he is a closer or starter he is just another relief pitcher and people don't buy middle relief pitchers jerseys.

I also love the phrase out getters, my thoughts on that is you have  3 really good pitchers that can consistently get outs for 6 to 7 innings, you have a couple that can consistently get out for 4 to 6, you have a few guys in the pen that can consistently get you 2 - 3 and a few that are good for 1.  Chris Archer was a great out getter for 3 to 4 innings this year and should have been paired with another out getter that could go 3 to 4 innings. Bundy was a pretty good out getter for 5 innings he should have been paired with a 2 to 3 inning out getter. Fans will buy this because it makes sense, what fans wouldn't buy is building a whole staff on this philosophy, unless I guess your have an offense full of all stars and future HOFS.

[Original_JB]

Since this is sort of a "Moneyball" approach for pitching, let's look to the past. When the A's implemented it for their batters/fielders, what happened? They eschewed $$$ players and played the efficiency game. Did people stop going? Did people stop buying jerseys/memorabilia to any degree? I think winning tends to trump everything else (I can't explain Tampa any better than I can attendance for NFL games in L.A.), but I don't know the numbers.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Original_JB
added "to" between tends and trump

[Old Twins Hat]

17 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

 

I simply don't care about boxes. I don't need the designations like starter, long reliever, reliever, set up or closer. 

To me it's simple. I want 13 guys who can pitch Period. Those who pitch better should get more innings. I don't care where they enter a game. Boxes just limit what is possible. 

If that means stretching those who are currently designated as a reliever to 2 or 3 or 4 innings... do it. If that means someone who is currently designated as a starter enters the game in the 4 inning... do it. 

I am well past the days of Starters throw 6 and relievers throw 1 inning. It can be any combination necessary and at any point in the game. If Pitcher A who is currently designated as a reliever is better than Pitcher B who is currently designated as a starter... Pitcher A should get more innings because he is better. 

I

Well, you may be over it, and Analytics may call for it, and managers may even plan for it, but I guarantee that the individual pitchers, the ones who want to be great and make a ton of money, they are not over wanting to be a starting pitcher and go all nine, strike-outs in the many hundreds at the end of the season.

That's how these guys came up through the junior leagues and that's the way they want it.  And any limitations imposed on their pitching in an actual game, and those guys are going to want to go elsewhere, quickly. 

It's an artificial limit on how much money a truly gifted athlete can make and how far he can carry a team.

You tell a Scherzer that he's done after four innings?  There will be blood somewhere in that locker room.

[TwinsDr2021]

22 minutes ago, Original_JB said:

Since this is sort of a "Moneyball" approach for pitching, let's look to the past. When the A's implemented it for their batters/fielders, what happened? They eschewed $$$ players and played the efficiency game. Did people stop going? Did people stop buying jerseys/memorabilia to any degree? I think winning tends to trump everything else (I can't explain Tampa any better than I can attendance for NFL games in L.A.), but I don't know the numbers.

In 1987 the A's attendance was 1.678 million. Then it jumped to 2 million plus for 6 years with one at 2.9. Dipped for 6 years to between 1.2 and 1.6. The next 7 years were above 1.9 million. And since 2008 only once has been above 1.81 million (2014).

In that time they have been to 6 playoffs. The last two years have been 788 K or less and that was after winning the division title in 2020, and winning 97 game the two years prior. Does Winning really solve attendance issues?

How come Tampa since 2008 has only finished as high as 9th in the American league, just once and basically been in the bottom two in attendance every other year, while being in the playoffs 8 times and have 4 Division titles?

What has been on consistent thing for these two year (besides winning and low attendance)?

 

 

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, Old Twins Hat said:

Well, you may be over it, and Analytics may call for it, and managers may even plan for it, but I guarantee that the individual pitchers, the ones who want to be great and make a ton of money, they are not over wanting to be a starting pitcher and go all nine, strike-outs in the many hundreds at the end of the season.

That's how these guys came up through the junior leagues and that's the way they want it.  And any limitations imposed on their pitching in an actual game, and those guys are going to want to go elsewhere, quickly. 

It's an artificial limit on how much money a truly gifted athlete can make and how far he can carry a team.

You tell a Scherzer that he's done after four innings?  There will be blood somewhere in that locker room.

If we had a Scherzer or two my guess is they would let him pitch however long they want. We certainly didn’t this past season. And it’s highly unlikely we are ever going to pay for a Scherzer so we work with what we have. Sonny Gray did not pitch well enough to get more innings. Once or twice they could have let him go longer, imo, but the rest of the time, no. He complained about this after one start being taken out, then the next start he pitched horribly and then threw out a mea culpa saying he had to do better. The problem with how the Twins managed their pitchers wasn’t that they pulled their starters too soon to please the fans, but that they didn’t construct a very good BP to withstand their philosophy. There was one notable time I would have let Ryan go deeper, and I still would have, but I also understand the reasoning behind why not, plus he was a rookie and spent time on the IL and was very up and down for several starts following, But I hope he gets more innings next season and will be a pitcher who will command more innings. But when your starting staff is filled with two decent middle pitchers (Ryan and Gray) and then Bundy, Archer and the injured crew, and an inadequate BP, the FO either needs to reconsider its philosophy, or needs to do a much better job at constructing a pitching staff that can get through 9 innings each and every game without falling apart.

[Riverbrian]

12 hours ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

Why?

what drives attendance today?

what about this setup would reduce attendance? Reduced star power in the rotation? Does Sonny Gray bring in tons of ticket sales?

in 2022 length of game reduced my attendance. With 5+ pitchers used over 4 hours…. Brutal….

knock that down to 2 or 3 pitchers per game again. Like the good old days so many people wax nostalgically for, only 5 and 4 innings instead of 8 and 1.

im totally behind the “out getters” phrase used by Counsell

"Out Getter" is a decent label. I've been talking about this concept for a couple of years now. I just call them pitchers while trying to remove the starter and reliever designations. Get more innings out of your effective relievers and get less innings (or none at all) out of your less effective starters. Disclaimer: I hate having to use "Starter" and "Reliever" as a conventional starting point for understanding while trying describe how their utilization could change in an effort to no longer refer to pitchers as "Starters" or "Relievers".

How many innings can each pitcher throw effectively is the question. Once you have that answer, you have 1437 innings to cover, Give the most innings to the your best pitchers based on how many they can throw.  

How much rest is required for one time through the order (for example).  It should be less than five days rest, yet probably more than 1 day rest. I don't know but they have a staff of people who collect data and they have imagination. We can't be that locked in 5 days rest or 1 day rest and very little in between. 

Pagan throwing as many innings as Duran only makes sense because of traditional usage. Very few of us question it because we have all grown up on this standard.  

Dylan Bundy throwing twice as many innings as Duran only makes sense because of traditional usage... very few of us question it. 

However... if you took the static roles and the conventional baggage away it's hard to justify. If you tried to explain it to someone from Mars (or Wyoming)... there is no way you can justify Bundy getting twice as many innings as Duran and certainly no way to justify Duran and Pagan getting an equal amount of innings. 

That said... The compensation system is going to be a very big hurdle. 

 

[Original_JB]

"What has been on consistent thing for these two year (besides winning and low attendance)?"

Horrible ballparks and low budgets

Edited October 13, 2022 by Original_JB
added "low budgets"

[Riverbrian]

24 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

If we had a Scherzer or two my guess is they would let him pitch however long they want. We certainly didn’t this past season. And it’s highly unlikely we are ever going to pay for a Scherzer so we work with what we have. Sonny Gray did not pitch well enough to get more innings. Once or twice they could have let him go longer, imo, but the rest of the time, no. He complained about this after one start being taken out, then the next start he pitched horribly and then threw out a mea culpa saying he had to do better. The problem with how the Twins managed their pitchers wasn’t that they pulled their starters too soon to please the fans, but that they didn’t construct a very good BP to withstand their philosophy. There was one notable time I would have let Ryan go deeper, and I still would have, but I also understand the reasoning behind why not, plus he was a rookie and spent time on the IL and was very up and down for several starts following, But I hope he gets more innings next season and will be a pitcher who will command more innings. But when your starting staff is filled with two decent middle pitchers (Ryan and Gray) and then Bundy, Archer and the injured crew, and an inadequate BP, the FO either needs to reconsider its philosophy, or needs to do a much better job at constructing a pitching staff that can get through 9 innings each and every game without falling apart.

Well Said

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, Old Twins Hat said:

Well, you may be over it, and Analytics may call for it, and managers may even plan for it, but I guarantee that the individual pitchers, the ones who want to be great and make a ton of money, they are not over wanting to be a starting pitcher and go all nine, strike-outs in the many hundreds at the end of the season.

That's how these guys came up through the junior leagues and that's the way they want it.  And any limitations imposed on their pitching in an actual game, and those guys are going to want to go elsewhere, quickly. 

It's an artificial limit on how much money a truly gifted athlete can make and how far he can carry a team.

You tell a Scherzer that he's done after four innings?  There will be blood somewhere in that locker room.

I wouldn't tell a Scherzer that he's done after four innings. Scherzer would be one of the best pitchers and therefore throw as many innings as he is capable of throwing.

I would limit Bundy or Archer. Increase Duran. 

I'm not talking about the Twins two times through the order strategy implemented this past season that has people up in arms. 

Your best pitchers throw MORE innings.

It's an objection to the current necessity of an "Innings Eater" to fill those 1437 innings. 

[TwinsDr2021]

48 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

If we had a Scherzer or two my guess is they would let him pitch however long they want. We certainly didn’t this past season. And it’s highly unlikely we are ever going to pay for a Scherzer so we work with what we have. Sonny Gray did not pitch well enough to get more innings. Once or twice they could have let him go longer, imo, but the rest of the time, no. He complained about this after one start being taken out, then the next start he pitched horribly and then threw out a mea culpa saying he had to do better. The problem with how the Twins managed their pitchers wasn’t that they pulled their starters too soon to please the fans, but that they didn’t construct a very good BP to withstand their philosophy. There was one notable time I would have let Ryan go deeper, and I still would have, but I also understand the reasoning behind why not, plus he was a rookie and spent time on the IL and was very up and down for several starts following, But I hope he gets more innings next season and will be a pitcher who will command more innings. But when your starting staff is filled with two decent middle pitchers (Ryan and Gray) and then Bundy, Archer and the injured crew, and an inadequate BP, the FO either needs to reconsider its philosophy, or needs to do a much better job at constructing a pitching staff that can get through 9 innings each and every game without falling apart.

Everything you wrote is spot on, but what Riverbrian is saying isn't how to to better construct a bullpen when you have a starting staff of decent at best starters, unless I am missing something. I am reading it as saying throw out the idea of starters and relief pitchers and filling the 1450 innings with out getters,

That would be a self full filling prophecy of never having a Scherzer or McClanahan type pitcher, because you would never give a pitcher a chance to do that because it would be an organizational philosophy of training pitcher to pitch every third game for 3 innings for example (that gets you to 150ish innings) or guys pitching two innings basically every other day (160 innings). Or guys pitching 4 innings every 4th game (160 innings). Then a bunch of guys 1 innings or specialist guys to come in when needed.

it was also conceded that compensation system is going to be a very big hurdle. 

What you have describe is a more realist approach to pitching in mid to smaller markets, compensate for decent starters by having out getters either starting games or coming in for multiple innings, grooming younger pitchers in these scenarios and then moving them them into a starers role if they have proven themselves, like they did with Liriano and Johan.

[Riverbrian]

21 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

 

That would be a self full filling prophecy of never having a Scherzer or McClanahan type pitcher, because you would never give a pitcher a chance to do that because it would be an organizational philosophy of training pitcher to pitch every third game for 3 innings for example (that gets you to 150ish innings) or guys pitching two innings basically every other day (160 innings). Or guys pitching 4 innings every 4th game (160 innings). Then a bunch of guys 1 innings or specialist guys to come in when needed.

 

Where did I say that? 

Let me tell everyone reading that what you typed isn't close to what I'm saying.  

If Scherzer or McClanahan are capable of throwing 12 effective innings each utilization... let them. They are Great pitchers and I want more innings from our great (Best) pitchers. If Scherzer and McClanahan can gobble up 437 innings combined of the 1437 needed. That's GOOD. Now you can focus on the remaining 1000 innings with the 11 other pitching slots.  

Less innings for our lesser pitchers. More Duran... Less Bundy.

The concept I'm talking about is only confusing if you try to apply it to traditional designations or what the Twins did this past season.  

My thoughts have very little to do with what the Twins did with the starting rotation this past season.  

Please don't meld those two worlds together because it will just further muddy the waters and it's hard enough to get people to see it with past constructs blinding them. 

How did what I typed express that Scherzer has to throw 3 innings now... like it is some new robotic formula? 

 

[Squirrel]

14 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Everything you wrote is spot on, but what Riverbrian is saying isn't how to to better construct a bullpen when you have a starting staff of decent at best starters, unless I am missing something. I am reading it as saying throw out the idea of starters and relief pitchers and filling the 1450 innings with out getters,

That would be a self full filling prophecy of never having a Scherzer or McClanahan type pitcher, because you would never give a pitcher a chance to do that because it would be an organizational philosophy of training pitcher to pitch every third game for 3 innings for example (that gets you to 150ish innings) or guys pitching two innings basically every other day (160 innings). Or guys pitching 4 innings every 4th game (160 innings). Then a bunch of guys 1 innings or specialist guys to come in when needed.

it was also conceded that compensation system is going to be a very big hurdle. 

What you have describe is a more realist approach to pitching in mid to smaller markets, compensate for decent starters by having out getters either starting games or coming in for multiple innings, grooming younger pitchers in these scenarios and then moving them them into a starers role if they have proven themselves, like they did with Liriano and Johan.

Well, I’m not sure I’m completely on Brian’s page but I don’t disagree, in theory. I’m more a ‘one size does not fit all’ person and we need to roll with that because we do not have the Scherzer type pitchers. We could get a pitcher or two that could fulfill a traditional starter role, but then that will leave us with 3 or 4 who don’t. But my main bugaboo has always been, if this is how it is going to be, fill your roster with mediocre adequate or slightly above they have to construct a better BP. That said, yeah ,,, I don’t have an answer to how, then, to construct a pitcher’s contract. And could we potentially be hurting their potential earnings? I come back to Sonny Gray, who complained about coming out too soon after one outing, and then blew up the next outing and basically said,  ‘yeah, okay, I get it and I need to do better.’ Bottom line is great pitchers will be paid like great pitchers and so on. And if the Twins don’t want to pay for it, or their philosophy becomes a huge detraction, then yeah, the FO will need to adjust.

[TwinsDr2021]

36 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Where did I say that? 

Let me tell everyone reading that what you typed isn't close to what I'm saying.  

If Scherzer or McClanahan are capable of throwing 12 effective innings each utilization... let them. They are Great pitchers and I want more innings from our great (Best) pitchers. If Scherzer and McClanahan can gobble up 437 innings combined of the 1437 needed. That's GOOD. Now you can focus on the remaining 1000 innings with the 11 other pitching slots.  

Less innings for our lesser pitchers. More Duran... Less Bundy.

The concept I'm talking about is only confusing if you try to apply it to traditional designations or what the Twins did this past season.  

My thoughts have very little to do with what the Twins did with the starting rotation this past season.  

Please don't meld those two worlds together because it will just further muddy the waters and it's hard enough to get people to see it with past constructs blinding them. 

How did what I typed express that Scherzer has to throw 3 innings now... like it is some new robotic formula? 

 

Sorry, I guess I don't understand what you are saying, removing the traditional roles (starter and relief) it out getter types? Get your better pitchers to pitch more than you worse pitchers to pitch less. Isn't that what every team has been trying to do since the beginning? Isn't that way teams start the guys they start and use the others as relief pitchers?

Then the solution is to not have bad or decent pitchers just good ones? correct?

In your example you are saying more Duran and less Bundy, but that doesn't make sense because everybody knew that Duran was going to be limited this year based on throwing 16 innings since 2019. You need to be comparing Bundy to the other pitchers that pitched for the Twins this year.

To get more innings out of really good current relief pitchers means pitching more innings and less outings and prep for that, which means now you still need other really good pitchers to fill that void (the games previous pitcher is no longer pitching in)

Which goes back to the Scherzer example how would you ever develop a pitcher like him if you are prepping an organization to fill the innings that way you are suggesting?

[Beast]

When has this FO ever shown they can evaluate anything?  Except for Correa and Nelson Cruz falling into their lap, have they ever done anything with a player that wasn’t drafted or acquired by the previous regime?

Other than Duran, who is a relieve (big whoop), I can’t really think of anyone that is considered a high-end MLB player at their position.  Not one in, what, 7-8 years now?

Im not talking about OK guys like Sonny Gray (who can’t stay healthy, and they didn’t develop), here.  True difference makers.

[Muppet]

I'd like to see them be able to get through a game without using more than 4 pitchers. Maybe sometimes the 'starter' goes 3 innings, maybe sometimes he goes 7 innings. But when they go 3-4 innings, the following pitchers need to be able to get 6+ outs as well. It is somewhat maddening to see them pull a pitcher who is performing well after 5 only to have 5 or 6 more pitchers finish up the game leaving them depleted for the coming few games. 

I like that they are experimenting and doing new things with pitching, knowing that they won't ever be able (or willing) to afford top tier pitching, but when the plan isn't working they need to adapt. This whole season has been a demonstration of failing to adapt to a plan that isn't working. 

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Sorry, I guess I don't understand what you are saying, removing the traditional roles (starter and relief) it out getter types? Get your better pitchers to pitch more than you worse pitchers to pitch less. Isn't that what every team has been trying to do since the beginning? Isn't that way teams start the guys they start and use the others as relief pitchers?

Then the solution is to not have bad or decent pitchers just good ones? correct?

In your example you are saying more Duran and less Bundy, but that doesn't make sense because everybody knew that Duran was going to be limited this year based on throwing 16 innings since 2019. You need to be comparing Bundy to the other pitchers that pitched for the Twins this year.

To get more innings out of really good current relief pitchers means pitching more innings and less outings and prep for that, which means now you still need other really good pitchers to fill that void (the games previous pitcher is no longer pitching in)

Which goes back to the Scherzer example how would you ever develop a pitcher like him if you are prepping an organization to fill the innings that way you are suggesting?

Isn't that what every team has been trying to do since the beginning?

Not in Practice. A below average starter (traditional designation) throws more innings than an above average reliever (traditional designation). 140 Innings from a 4.89 ERA and 60 innings from a 1.86 ERA is backwards.  

Then the solution is to not have bad or decent pitchers just good ones? correct?

That is always what teams strive for but it is really hard to accomplish especially when you shackle yourself to the traditional construct of having 5 guys in a rotation regardless of talent level. Teams are really scraping bottom to keep the rotation alive. You have a better chance of having 13 good pitchers on your roster if take your pile of pitchers, remove the designations and choose the best 13 and maximize the usage of your very best. An innings eater starter (traditional designation) with a 4.89 ERA who stays in the rotation for rotation continuity may not make the best 13 pitchers on your staff and if he does... you still want to throw him less. Less Bundy... More Duran but this concept will be hard to grasp as long as you continue to think of Bundy as a starter who throws 4 or 5 or 6 innings a pop and Duran as a reliever who throws 1 inning each time. You have to stop putting pitchers in starter and reliever boxes to open up the doors to consider it.     

In your example you are saying more Duran and less Bundy, but that doesn't make sense because everybody knew that Duran was going to be limited this year based on throwing 16 innings since 2019. You need to be comparing Bundy to the other pitchers that pitched for the Twins this year.

Duran and Bundy are being used by me for example purposes. I use Duran because he was lights out. I chose Bundy because he was the closest to that innings eater that I'm trying to eliminate. The example I'm trying to illustrate is that Bundy... the lesser pitcher threw twice as many innings as the guy who was knocking them down. There is a difference between limiting Duran to 60 IP (due to 16IP since 2019) to managing his workload from a health perspective and limiting his workload because you are utilizing him in standard bullpen formation. 60 IP is typical bullpen output through history and that is where he landed. If they want to manage his workload for health concerns... OK... Factor that in. But, you should be looking at how to get Duran more innings because he is better than Bundy. 

To get more innings out of really good current relief pitchers means pitching more innings and less outings and prep for that, which means now you still need other really good pitchers to fill that void (the games previous pitcher is no longer pitching in)

Yes... you will have to change from the way things were done before. The rest pattern would have to adjust to make that happen and it won't happen if you hang on to 5 days rest for a starter and 1 day rest for a reliever and don't consider the considerable middle ground in between. Let's go back to Duran... What would it take to get him from 60 to 120 innings next year assuming health all year long? 3 IP every 4 days is the answer. How you reach that number, 3 in one burst or spread or 2 sets of 2IP is fluid. Keep it fluid. It's mathematically possible if you just remove the conventional designations and usage patterns associated with those starter/reliever designations. Yes... you could knock Duran out for a few days because he stayed in a game for awhile. You have days when pitchers are unavailable in today's format and there will be times when pitchers are unavailable with my suggestion. Backfilling will always be part of the pitching equation but you will be in better shape for those unavailable moments because your staff is better with your best 13 pitchers to choose from.  

Which goes back to the Scherzer example how would you ever develop a pitcher like him if you are prepping an organization to fill the innings that way you are suggesting?

That one is easy. You let good pitchers pitch as many innings as they effectively can. If you are developing a Scherzer, get out of his way. Keep stretching him out. Limiting the work load of Scherzer or Duran is a human decision to limit a pitcher who hangs zeroes and replacing those innings with someone who isn't as good as they are.

The reason they are limited? Well... that is done to stay in format.  

 

[Original_JB]

12 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Isn't that what every team has been trying to do since the beginning?

Not in Practice. A below average starter (traditional designation) throws more innings than an above average reliever (traditional designation). 140 Innings from a 4.89 ERA and 60 innings from a 1.86 ERA is backwards.  

Then the solution is to not have bad or decent pitchers just good ones? correct?

That is always what teams strive for but it is really hard to accomplish especially when you shackle yourself to the traditional construct of having 5 guys in a rotation regardless of talent level. Teams are really scraping bottom to keep the rotation alive. You have a better chance of having 13 good pitchers on your roster if take your pile of pitchers, remove the designations and choose the best 13 and maximize the usage of your very best. An innings eater starter (traditional designation) with a 4.89 ERA who stays in the rotation for rotation continuity may not make the best 13 pitchers on your staff and if he does... you still want to throw him less. Less Bundy... More Duran but this concept will be hard to grasp as long as you continue to think of Bundy as a starter who throws 4 or 5 or 6 innings a pop and Duran as a reliever who throws 1 inning each time. You have to stop putting pitchers in starter and reliever boxes to open up the doors to consider it.     

In your example you are saying more Duran and less Bundy, but that doesn't make sense because everybody knew that Duran was going to be limited this year based on throwing 16 innings since 2019. You need to be comparing Bundy to the other pitchers that pitched for the Twins this year.

Duran and Bundy are being used by me for example purposes. I use Duran because he was lights out. I chose Bundy because he was the closest to that innings eater that I'm trying to eliminate. The example I'm trying to illustrate is that Bundy... the lesser pitcher threw twice as many innings as the guy who was knocking them down. There is a difference between limiting Duran to 60 IP (due to 16IP since 2019) to managing his workload from a health perspective and limiting his workload because you are utilizing him in standard bullpen formation. 60 IP is typical bullpen output through history and that is where he landed. If they want to manage his workload for health concerns... OK... Factor that in. But, you should be looking at how to get Duran more innings because he is better than Bundy. 

To get more innings out of really good current relief pitchers means pitching more innings and less outings and prep for that, which means now you still need other really good pitchers to fill that void (the games previous pitcher is no longer pitching in)

Yes... you will have to change from the way things were done before. The rest pattern would have to adjust to make that happen and it won't happen if you hang on to 5 days rest for a starter and 1 day rest for a reliever and don't consider the considerable middle ground in between. Let's go back to Duran... What would it take to get him from 60 to 120 innings next year assuming health all year long? 3 IP every 4 days is the answer. How you reach that number, 3 in one burst or spread or 2 sets of 2IP is fluid. Keep it fluid. It's mathematically possible if you just remove the conventional designations and usage patterns associated with those starter/reliever designations. Yes... you could knock Duran out for a few days because he stayed in a game for awhile. You have days when pitchers are unavailable in today's format and there will be times when pitchers are unavailable with my suggestion. Backfilling will always be part of the pitching equation but you will be in better shape for those unavailable moments because your staff is better with your best 13 pitchers to choose from.  

Which goes back to the Scherzer example how would you ever develop a pitcher like him if you are prepping an organization to fill the innings that way you are suggesting?

That one is easy. You let good pitchers pitch as many innings as they effectively can. If you are developing a Scherzer, get out of his way. Keep stretching him out. Limiting the work load of Scherzer or Duran is a human decision to limit a pitcher who hangs zeroes and replacing those innings with someone who isn't as good as they are.  

 

Thank you. I knew that if I walked away that someone would write this up, and you get exactly what I'm saying and expressed it eloquently.  I'll add another thought, it doesn't need to be done overnight, or in dramatic fashion. You start with the statement that every pitcher on the staff is capable of going two innings. Even if you have short starts, this alone will cut down on the 5 relievers/game we're starting to see much too regularly.

[Riverbrian]

2 minutes ago, Original_JB said:

Thank you. I knew that if I walked away that someone would write this up, and you get exactly what I'm saying and expressed it eloquently.  I'll add another thought, it doesn't need to be done overnight, or in dramatic fashion. You start with the statement that every pitcher on the staff is capable of going two innings. Even if you have short starts, this alone will cut down on the 5 relievers/game we're starting to see much too regularly.

Thank You for the topic. 

I don't believe this can happen overnight because as I mentioned before the current compensation structure and the fact that it would take an incredible amount of guts to implement. Doing something radically different is risky when it comes to job security, because it could go wrong. Wrong is much more explainable when you stay within the lines. 

An owner would have to be the one who clears the path.  

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

Less Bundy... More Duran but this concept will be hard to grasp as long as you continue to think of Bundy as a starter who throws 4 or 5 or 6 innings a pop and Duran as a reliever who throws 1 inning each time. You have to stop putting pitchers in starter and reliever boxes to open up the doors to consider it.   

I hear what you are saying, but again that just means you need all good or better pitchers. The reason Bundy threw 140 innings wasn't because Duran only threw 67.2, it was because the Twins thought he was better than Pagan, Thielbar, Megill, Duffey, Moan, Cotton, Sands, Smith , Smeltzer and such pitching more innings on top of Ober, Winder, Ryan, Gray and Mahle's injuries same with why Archer pitched 102 innings.

I think we can agree Duran should pitch more innings than last year but if that is because he is pitching less games and more innings, that means they need other bullpen members close to as good as him to finish games or come in a save an inning, correct?

The twins next year are going into the season with multiple pitchers that could/should be considered traditional starters, I agree Duran, Jax, Ober, Winder, Varland can be multiple innings pitchers (starting a game or coming into a game later), what becomes difficult is how to use them if traditional starters go longer because they are pitching great or short because they weren't on that day or blow out games For example if the Plan is Ryan to start a game and go 6 and Duran is set to pitch the last 3 innings, what do they go if Twins go way up or way down are you going to pitch Duran in a game like that, just because or do you save him and then what happens when he hasn't pitched in days? This is why it becomes difficult to implement something similar. Which means you have to get away traditional starters completely and go with a idea of 3 to innings pitchers pitching every few days. Which gets to my point unless you bring a stud starter from the outside you probably aren't going to develop one.

 

[TwinsDr2021]

3 hours ago, Original_JB said:

"What has been on consistent thing for these two year (besides winning and low attendance)?"

Horrible ballparks and low budgets

Maybe trading away stars, having nobody consistent to cheer for? Tampa went up 4 K this year down 5 K after finishing 1st in the division after 20.

[ICTwin25]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Maybe trading away stars, having nobody consistent to cheer for? Tampa went up 4 K this year down 5 K after finishing 1st in the division after 20.

Good point. The A's haven't had a strong marketable player in quite some time so that definitely hurts attendance. They also have an awful stadium. The Twins have marketable players and a nice stadium so attendance shouldn't be a concern if they are winning.

Regarding methodology, they have a ton of SP to pick from so I doubt they go after one but I would like to see them be aggressive with 1, maybe 2 long relievers. They have a closer in Duran but why not try to load up? Pitching wins and always will.