Article: Liriano's Success Is Tough To Stomach

[Thrylos]

It works both ways Mike. You'd be right in questioning any unflattering conclusion drawn from a few examples like Lohse or Liriano, just like you'd be right drawing the opposite conclusion from examples like Fien or Deduno.

 

Liriano is having a Cy Young season

Dickie had a Cy Young season

Lohse is having his third excellent season in a row

 

Deduno barely is a fifth starter in a competitive team (no matter what he is in the Twins)

Fien is a AAAA player who is coming back to earth after his .1xx BABIP the first half.

 

Apples and pineapples as far as impact goes...

[Teflon]

I think the takeaway is "the Twins as an organization are more comfortable giving money to a low floor, low ceiling pitcher like Kevin Carries, who would serve just fine as rotation insurance on a good team but is ill suited to really improve your team, than they are a guy like Liriano, who might bomb but has proven to have the talent to really be a difference maker."

 

I wonder if the perceived difficulty of coaching certain players weighs into the Twins decision-making at times over upside, also. I'm not claiming it does - just asking the question.

[Thrylos]

Do the Twins have a bad pitching coach or just bad pitchers? That's the core issue here. This team had pretty good pitching staffs for many years under Anderson, back when they had the ability to identify decent talent. .

 

That's kind of a chicken and egg situation...

 

But, if you remember at some point, just after Santana departed, the Twins had 6 young starters who were supposed to be the pillar who will take this team to the next level.

 

Baker, Blackburn, Bonser, Liriano, Slowey, Perkins.

 

But, (not only because of Anderson, the GM, minor league director and the manager are responsible as well,) the only thing they got 6 years afterwards (i.e. in these guys' prime years) is a good closer.

 

Unacceptable player development.

 

Someone should be accountable for this, and also for the fact that the Twins have been on the tail of the league for pitching the last 3 seasons.

[Kwak]

So the starters he's helped improve are Deduno, Albers, and Hernandez. But you already acknowledged the jury is out on Albers, and Hernandez didn't actually improve.

 

So Deduno is the one starter you can name that Anderson's improved.

 

He's certainly been fun to watch, but so were other low-K groundballers like Blackburn, Mays, and Silva at some relatively brief point in their careers.

 

Albers improved? How? He was doing very well in the minors (hence the promotion). He pitched two shutouts in his first two appearances. Then (after some time with Anderson) while with the Twins--he gets shelled in his third game. Improvement??

[Kwak]

I wonder if the perceived difficulty of coaching certain players weighs into the Twins decision-making at times over upside, also. I'm not claiming it does - just asking the question.

 

Durn right! During one of the telecasts, TK stated that the Twins preferred guys "...who were more coachable..." as opposed to [other guys].

[Kwak]

That's kind of a chicken and egg situation...

 

But, if you remember at some point, just after Santana departed, the Twins had 6 young starters who were supposed to be the pillar who will take this team to the next level.

 

Baker, Blackburn, Bonser, Liriano, Slowey, Perkins.

 

But, (not only because of Anderson, the GM, minor league director and the manager are responsible as well,) the only thing they got 6 years afterwards (i.e. in these guys' prime years) is a good closer.

 

Unacceptable player development.

 

Someone should be accountable for this, and also for the fact that the Twins have been on the tail of the league for pitching the last 3 seasons.

 

...and Garza.

[LaBombo]

Albers improved? How? He was doing very well in the minors (hence the promotion). He pitched two shutouts in his first two appearances. Then (after some time with Anderson) while with the Twins--he gets shelled in his third game. Improvement??

It looks like maybe you stopped reading after my first sentence.

[Thrylos]

...and Garza.

 

No. I am talking after Santana. Garza and Santana departed the same season, and the Twins regarded the other 6 ready and good. That was part of the reason Garza was traded; think Span & Revere trades because of perceived depth at CF.

[drjim]

Durn right! During one of the telecasts, TK stated that the Twins preferred guys "...who were more coachable..." as opposed to [other guys].

 

This is probably the indictment of Anderson rather than trying to draw sweeping conclusions on a limited number of pitchers (with questionable talent and ability to stay healthy).

 

A coach should be able to reach all types of players and the list of players that have left and found success share certain personality traits.

 

When the Twins were successful they could afford to be choosy but three years of failure and a new generation of player coming through the ranks and it is probably a time for a change

[iastfan112]

GM and pitching coaches both need to be held accountable to the fact the last internally developed starting pitcher with any sort of sustained success was Matt Garza.

[LastOnePicked]

Somebody on TD did some important research on a post a few months back regarding pitcher K rates before working with Anderson and after. The drop in strikeouts was pretty alarming -- lending creedance to the idea that Anderson works pitchers too heavily towards pitching to contact (or, as he calls it now, "attacking the strike zone"). Of course, all of this discussion falls into the larger framework of the Twins bleeding talent over the last 4-5 years, and that may not entirely be Anderson's fault. But at this point, I just can't imagine what would be lost if Anderson were fired.

[clutterheart]

Sigh

This whole thing Stinks. Anderson probably isn't the best pitching coach. But don't forget Don Cooper is a pretty highly regarded coach who couldn't "fix" Liriano too.

 

I mean....what's a pitching coach to do? The starting pitchers are not good. Anderson has to work with who he has. And let's face it, none of his pitchers could be a #2 guy on any other team. - regardless of coaching.

 

I could buy into the idea that Anderson probally needs to go but...its not fair to blame him for the train wreck that is the Twins pitching staff.

 

The fault lies with Ryan.

[WilliesWorld24]

Originally Posted by USAFChief

I think the takeaway is "the Twins as an organization are more comfortable giving money to a low floor, low ceiling pitcher like Kevin Carries, who would serve just fine as rotation insurance on a good team but is ill suited to really improve your team, than they are a guy like Liriano, who might bomb but has proven to have the talent to really be a difference maker."

 

 

 

I wonder if the perceived difficulty of coaching certain players weighs into the Twins decision-making at times over upside, also. I'm not claiming it does - just asking the question.

 

I agree with these two items. Here is what I can not reconcile. The Twins came out last offseason and said, in essence, 'We need to change our pitching philosophy - no more 'pitch to contact' - we want power arms, miss bats, and we are going to take aggressive actions to change throughout our system.' TR then explained that these guys are tough to acquire because everyone wants and pays for power arms [generally agree]. To that end, the Twins draft, starting in 2012, had more power arms [check]. The Twins then traded Revere and Span for May and Meyer - AA power arms [check]. So far, so good.

 

Here is where FO has lost me. One source of power arms - if this is our new philosophy - the new Twins culture - is the decisions made at the major league level.

(1) Sign Correia to a 2 year (2 year!?!) deal

(2) Sign Pelf

(3) Do not sign Liriano as a high ceiling, albeit volatile/lower probability of improvement - but at a relatively low cost

(4) Do not re-sign Baker (above average k/9) - even if this worked out for the Twins due to injury - the issue is with the inconsistency of message/failed implementation of the plan - if you want to miss bats, you sign Baker and Liriano [or Feldman, Sanchez, etc - guys that miss bats] - not Pelf, Correia, etc.

(5) Retain a former MiLB soft-tosser pitching coach to change his pitch to contact philosophy and now implement a miss bats culture at the MLB level

 

So what is the plan? And why stop at the minor league level? Finally, I am thrilled that Liriano is having success - and hope he keeps it up. And that the Twins learn from these developments. Do not give up on high ceiling talent - even if it is strong-willed. Pay for elite talent - and make that decision early. Invest in power arms - you can always find the Pelfs, Fiens, etc to supplement your roster - not be the core competency of the org.

[Bob Christie]

I think Twins fans should feel good about Lirianos success. He had some great games for the Twins, and if not for surgery, probably a great career with us ?

If you look at a majority of Twins pitchers that have gone to other teams and the success theyve had.maybe it isnt the pitchers that are the problem ? I sat at Twins Feast last winter and listened to Owners and managers tell how this new crop of pitchers was the savior of the team. Boy, looks

ike something didnt work as planed there !!

[Mike Sixel]

It is the coach's jobs to make players better.....clearly this staff is awful, and that part is not the coaches' fault. But, I find it hard to name players that come up and get better.....if a coach does not make players better, no matter how bad they are when they come up, what is his role exactly?

[nicksaviking]

Sigh

This whole thing Stinks. Anderson probably isn't the best pitching coach. But don't forget Don Cooper is a pretty highly regarded coach who couldn't "fix" Liriano too.

 

I mean....what's a pitching coach to do? The starting pitchers are not good. Anderson has to work with who he has. And let's face it, none of his pitchers could be a #2 guy on any other team. - regardless of coaching.

 

I could buy into the idea that Anderson probally needs to go but...its not fair to blame him for the train wreck that is the Twins pitching staff.

 

The fault lies with Ryan.

 

Well Cooper had a month to work with Liriano, Anderson had years.

 

If we can not definitively determine if it is the coach or the players, why are we not hedging our bet by replacing everyone? As stated in this post, and a thought I'm sure is held by plenty of others defending Anderson, he is not the best pitching coach. So why is it a crime to try to upgrade?

[diehardtwinsfan]

A coach should be able to reach all types of players and the list of players that have left and found success share certain personality traits.

 

Remember that the next time you have to fire someone. There are people out there who are uncoachable. Garza, lest we forget, had his fair share of runins with the Tampa Bay coaches after he was traded and eventually ended up getting medicated if I remember right.

 

I'm not trying to defend Anderson here, because Thrylos's point about not developing any of those 6 (minus Perkins) is apt I think, but coachability is an issue. Many professional athletes have NEVER experienced failure at any level. They have egos the size of the planet and don't take advice well. To me, this is a bigger problem in football then baseball, but it is an issue. I do agree that coaches need to be good at reaching people of all personality types, but lets not pretend that coachability isn't a good trait.

[drjim]

Remember that the next time you have to fire someone. There are people out there who are uncoachable. Garza, lest we forget, had his fair share of runins with the Tampa Bay coaches after he was traded and eventually ended up getting medicated if I remember right.

 

I'm not trying to defend Anderson here, because Thrylos's point about not developing any of those 6 (minus Perkins) is apt I think, but coachability is an issue. Many professional athletes have NEVER experienced failure at any level. They have egos the size of the planet and don't take advice well. To me, this is a bigger problem in football then baseball, but it is an issue. I do agree that coaches need to be good at reaching people of all personality types,

but lets not pretend that coachability isn't a good trait.

 

100% is unfair but there is a very low success of a certain archtype - who unfortunately seem to generally have better stuff.

 

To build on your analogy I would nit want to fire my top producers because they don't work in very narrow parameters I have set up.

[Winston Smith]

Durn right! During one of the telecasts, TK stated that the Twins preferred guys "...who were more coachable..." as opposed to [other guys].

 

The pitching staff is also very white and english speaking. Not sure that means more coachable but the lack of minorities % wise is out of wack. League wide is 35-40%, Twins have 1 out of 12.

The lack of minority coaches has been the "Twins Way" for a long time.

[Mike Sixel]

Coachability is a trait, no doubt.....does every starting pitcher since Garza/Baker lack it?

[jokin]

...and Garza.

 

Garza was rated the Twins #1 prospect going into 2007- and Kyle Lohse had also been deemed expendable just the season before Johan's departure, even with the club apparently knowing full well that they wouldn't re-sign Santana .

 

And later, RA Dickey with the "uncoachable" knuckler after Santana. Not many small-market teams can afford getting rid of 3 Cy Young-level talents (plus a potentially solid Lohse) with nothing in return to show for it- whether they are "uncoachable" or not- you have to get some kind of solid return for the single most important commodity in baseball. (That term "uncoachable" just sounds like a copout for old guys on the downside of their careers, with their energy and tolerance levels ebbing for being capable of dealing with young ego-centric and testosterone-filled ballplayers and all of their pecadillos- it's simpler to just get rid of some of the "problems", find more low-maintanence arms and personalities, who literally won't bang down your door or go goofy on Twiter. )

 

Blame all around here.

[drjim]

The pitching staff is also very white and english speaking. Not sure that means more coachable but the lack of minorities % wise is out of wack. League wide is 35-40%, Twins have 1 out of 12.

The lack of minority coaches has been the "Twins Way" for a long time.

 

Is this percentage true for pitchers? I thought there was a split between pitchers and position guys.

[iastfan112]

Garza was rated the Twins #1 prospect going into 2007- and Kyle Lohse had also been deemed expendable just the season before Johan's departure, even with the club apparently knowing full well that they wouldn't re-sign Santana .

 

And later, RA Dickey with the "uncoachable" knuckler after Santana. Not many small-market teams can afford getting rid of 3 Cy Young-level talents (plus a potentially solid Lohse) with nothing in return to show for it- whether they are "uncoachable" or not- you have to get some kind of solid return for the single most important commodity in baseball. (That term "uncoachable" just sounds like a copout for old guys on the downside of their careers, with their energy and tolerance levels ebbing for being capable of dealing with young ego-centric and testosterone-filled ballplayers and all of their pecadillos- it's simpler to just get rid of some of the "problems", find more low-maintanence arms and personalities, who literally won't bang down your door or go goofy on Twiter. )

 

Blame all around here.

 

Lohse was thoroughly a number 4 starter at best until 5 years after he left the Twins, not to mention he decided to take a bat to his managers door.

Dickey is a poor example as well, a number of teams tried him before the Twins and also failed, the success he enjoyed wasn't something that anyone was predicting. I remember no great outcry among the fanbase when the Twins let him go.

[Mike Sixel]

So basically, no one can tell me who gets better with Anderson, and when people give examples of people that get better when they leave, we should dismiss those.......what data should we use (other than "only data that agrees with me")?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Garza was rated the Twins #1 prospect going into 2007- and Kyle Lohse had also been deemed expendable just the season before Johan's departure, even with the club apparently knowing full well that they wouldn't re-sign Santana .

 

And later, RA Dickey with the "uncoachable" knuckler after Santana. Not many small-market teams can afford getting rid of 3 Cy Young-level talents (plus a potentially solid Lohse) with nothing in return to show for it- whether they are "uncoachable" or not- you have to get some kind of solid return for the single most important commodity in baseball. (That term "uncoachable" just sounds like a copout for old guys on the downside of their careers, with their energy and tolerance levels ebbing for being capable of dealing with young ego-centric and testosterone-filled ballplayers and all of their pecadillos- it's simpler to just get rid of some of the "problems", find more low-maintanence arms and personalities, who literally won't bang down your door or go goofy on Twiter. )

 

Blame all around here.

 

I'm no Anderson defender but you're climbing out on a limb with this post.

 

Garza, while good, is no Cy Young talent. He has received exactly zero CYA votes in his career as far as I can tell. And yes, trading him was stupid. But it was Bill Smith's stupidity, not Ryan and this is about Anderson, who got good results from Garza in his full season with the Twins.

 

Kyle Lohse was a bad trade but he stumbled through mediocrity for five years (and three different teams) before breaking out in his last season with St Louis. There should be some sort of statute of limitations on blame here.

 

And Dickey, well... *shrug*

 

Nobody saw that guy coming, including the Mets and the other three teams that had him at one point or another. A small fraction of forum posters I saw even cared that he moved on to another team.

[Mr. Brooks]

Lohse was thoroughly a number 4 starter at best until 5 years after he left the Twins, not to mention he decided to take a bat to his managers door.

Dickey is a poor example as well, a number of teams tried him before the Twins and also failed, the success he enjoyed wasn't something that anyone was predicting. I remember no great outcry among the fanbase when the Twins let him go.

 

I think you just made his point for him, with the bolded, as in, he left here and got better. When that happens, you have to at least CONSIDER that it could be on the coaches.

[Monkeypaws]

His success would be hard for me to stomach if I didn't like him. I do like him, and am happy for him.

 

Getting healthy, changing leagues, new pitching coach, it's not surprising really, given his stuff and his arm. Less surprising than Dickey, say.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think you just made his point for him, with the bolded, as in, he left here and got better. When that happens, you have to at least CONSIDER that it could be on the coaches.

 

If you're making this argument, then you have to make the argument that you believe Dave Duncan was a bad pitching coach. He had Lohse for four years with nearly identical results to Anderson.

 

Anyone here want to take a swing at that argument?

[Mr. Brooks]

If you're making this argument, then you have to make the argument that you believe Dave Duncan was a bad pitching coach. He had Lohse for four years with nearly identical results to Anderson.

 

Anyone here want to take a swing at that argument?

 

I didn't say it was the coaches fault. I said it has to at least be considered.

 

I won't pretend to know if Anderson is or is not a good pitching coach. I do know that I do not like his style, don't like it one bit. I don't like the theory of always "attacking the strike zone", even on 0-2. Anderson disagrees, he thinks you should never waste a pitch. It's just one of many reasons I don't care for his style.

[Frozented9]

If you're making this argument, then you have to make the argument that you believe Dave Duncan was a bad pitching coach. He had Lohse for four years with nearly identical results to Anderson.

 

Anyone here want to take a swing at that argument?

 

 

I'll try. ERA+ under Anderson 94 ERA+under Duncan 101.