Terry Ryan's Innovative formula for building a winner past and future

[Winston Smith]

"Terry Ryan's Innovative formula..."

Has given us one playoff series win in what 14-15 years. Doesn't seem good enough to me but I guess a lot of people are happy with that record.

Where you set the bar to be a happy fan will likely tell weather you think TR is innovative or not. I'd still like to hear Terry or Jim Pohlad say "we are going to do everything we can to build a world series championship team" and then go out a try.

Failure at trying to be the best I can live with, failure at trying to be mediocre, not so much.

[Alex]

I don't disagree with your general point, but I don't think it's a fair reading of his post.

 

The "strategy" would be the budgetary focus of acquiring 5 quality starters as opposed to competing with other teams for a perceived ace via free agency, which in turn may affect the ability to fill out the bottem of the order.

 

I applaud the author of the post, but this reference to starters exemplifies what I consider to be an incredibly basic flaw in the argument: the opposing ideas in the "blueprint" are not mutually exclusive.

 

The choice does not have to between one ace and 4 awful pitchers vs. 5 quality pitchers. You can actually build a rotation that includes and ace and four quality pitchers. In fact, good teams do.

 

The same is true of the lineup. Just because you sign a guy that hits 35 HR or more doesn't mean you have to have 8 holes in the other spots.

 

This is especially true now with the depth of the farm system AND the available money the Twins have, but it means you have to draft, sign, and develop the right players.

[ThePuck]

If your goal is to build a team that can advance far into the playoffs, the division championships, or playoff appearances, should come.

[gunnarthor]

 

 

On top of that, St Louis has been drafting pretty low for quite some time they seem to be getting production out of their draft.

 

I'm not sure how much of that is actually true. I looked at the 04-07 Twins draft earlier in this thread. Here's the Cards:

 

04 - Chris Lambert was their first pick (before any Twins pick) and he was a bust. Best player drafted in this draft was 6th rounder Jarrett Hoffpauir who played in 21 games and had a .590 OPS. Twins had a better draft.

 

05 - They had 4 first round picks (and 6 in the top 70) but only Colby Rasmus has made it. Twins had a better draft.

 

06 - They nailed this draft about as well as the Twins blew it. They had 5 picks in the first two rounds. First pick Adam Ottavino has been ok but after him they took Chris Perez and hit on John Jay in the 2nd round. 8th round pick Allen Craig has been a good player. 8th rounder David Carpenter and 28th rounder Luke Gregerson have both become legit relief pitchers.

 

07 - Nothing really. They had two first round picks - Pete Kozma and Clayton Mortensen - and they've combined for 0.5 WAR. Twins had a better draft.

 

08 - (I didn't do the Twins 08 draft but that was the Hicks draft). They had two first round picks again. Wallace was a bit of a bomb but Lance Lynn has been solid.

 

So I think the Twins have drafted about as well as the Cards over that period (if we keep this going, it looks like the 09 draft favors the Cards but they blew 3 first round picks in 2010.) One thing the Cards have done is made some trades that the Twins probably couldn't have done b/c of the salary issues. But both Wallace and Mortensen were part of the Matt Holliday trades.

[Brock Beauchamp]

There's very little innovation listed in this post.

 

What is listed is a solid, fundamental way of approaching baseball scouting and management, which is perfectly fine. Innovation can be important but only when it works... and it often doesn't.

 

There's nothing wrong with not being innovative about everything. But to compete in the market without innovation, you have to be really good at your fundamentals. Scouting, drafting, picking the right pieces at the right time to complement existing pieces.

 

Ryan was very good at doing this from 1998 to 2005-ish, after which the team fell off a cliff with the biggest aspect of fundamental-based, non-innovative managing: the draft. Some of this was poor decisions, some of it bad luck. In the end, it meant failure.

 

Ryan doesn't have to re-invent the wheel to win in baseball. He has to trust his baseball acumen, hire the right scouts, and focus on the things he excels at doing. Can he do that? Hard to say... the results in Minnesota thus far have been atrocious but his drafts look good, his trades look pretty good, and he's doing a lot of things right. Only time will tell whether it's enough.

[ThePuck]

I'm not sure how much of that is actually true. I looked at the 04-07 Twins draft earlier in this thread. Here's the Cards:

 

04 - Chris Lambert was their first pick (before any Twins pick) and he was a bust. Best player drafted in this draft was 6th rounder Jarrett Hoffpauir who played in 21 games and had a .590 OPS. Twins had a better draft.

 

05 - They had 4 first round picks (and 6 in the top 70) but only Colby Rasmus has made it. Twins had a better draft.

 

06 - They nailed this draft about as well as the Twins blew it. They had 5 picks in the first two rounds. First pick Adam Ottavino has been ok but after him they took Chris Perez and hit on John Jay in the 2nd round. 8th round pick Allen Craig has been a good player. 8th rounder David Carpenter and 28th rounder Luke Gregerson have both become legit relief pitchers.

 

07 - Nothing really. They had two first round picks - Pete Kozma and Clayton Mortensen - and they've combined for 0.5 WAR. Twins had a better draft.

 

08 - (I didn't do the Twins 08 draft but that was the Hicks draft). They had two first round picks again. Wallace was a bit of a bomb but Lance Lynn has been solid.

 

So I think the Twins have drafted about as well as the Cards over that period (if we keep this going, it looks like the 09 draft favors the Cards but they blew 3 first round picks in 2010.) One thing the Cards have done is made some trades that the Twins probably couldn't have done b/c of the salary issues. But both Wallace and Mortensen were part of the Matt Holliday trades.

 

I'm not sure I agree with the breakdown of which team was better looking at that comparison, but to each their own. And yes, Cards did some trades we wouldn't do...but you blame salary issues. They've only broken 100M over the last 3 years...during a time we could have done the same. Maybe some of it also had to do with not being willing to trade prospects for quality players (Holliday) or sign some top end FAs (Beltran, Berkman).

 

Regardless, the point still stands...there is talent to be had throughout the draft.

[TheLeviathan]

Nope, not at all... He was just highlighting what was the key to success for a decade. And, frankly, I would like to see a team be just good again. I'm not one that says "World Series championship or season is a failure." I want to see the team be competitive again, and the strategy mentioned above can get to that level. And, once you get to that level, then you'll need your aces and top level hitters to take it to the next step. .

 

right but you are essentially agreeing with an article that says the exact opposite. It belittles the need for top flight talent and the supposed innovation that calls for that.

 

I say that as someone that agrees with you. I think the postseason is largely a crapshoot, it's while you will never hear me dog Ryan, Gardy, Mauer, or anyone else for playoff failures. We found unique and maddening ways to get swept every year. But that does not excuse poor roster construction and an unwillingness to be aggressive at least occasionally.

 

Some of the same people praising his innovation are ones proud to call him old school. Last I checked, those definitions don't mesh. Ryan does many things well (doesnt make any catastrophically bad trades/moves for example) but the arrogance toward new, different, or potentially ahead of the curve trends is staggering and very discomforting. They can, and should in some ways, have confidence in their methods. But like any business or sports or life model - resistance to change and evolution is only oing to lead to negative outcomes overall. Certainly to limited potential.

[ThePuck]

I don't agree with you, but I don't want to get into an argument on expectations, with a poster whose avatar is a pig with lipstick.

 

What part of his post there is even debatable?

 

-Under Ryan, we have only one playoff series win in 14-15 years.

-The above doesn't seem good enough to him. He is the best judge of what is good enough for him.

-Certainly where you set the bar to be a happy fan will likely tell whether you think TR is innovative or not. IF everyone had the same bar, there'd be no debate.

-Certainly he knows that he, himself, would like to hear Terry or Jim Pohlad say "we are going to do everything we can to build a world series championship team" and then go out a try.

-Certainly he knows what he can live with. So when he says 'failure at trying to be the best I can live with, failure at trying to be mediocre, not so much', the only person who could dispute that is him.

 

That's the whole post.

[glunn]

"Terry Ryan's Innovative formula..."

Has given us one playoff series win in what 14-15 years. Doesn't seem good enough to me but I guess a lot of people are happy with that record.

Where you set the bar to be a happy fan will likely tell weather you think TR is innovative or not. I'd still like to hear Terry or Jim Pohlad say "we are going to do everything we can to build a world series championship team" and then go out a try.

Failure at trying to be the best I can live with, failure at trying to be mediocre, not so much.

 

Moderator note - please tone down the rhetoric.

[Willihammer]

Drafting low is part of it. If you draft in the 20s you're missing out on the top talent every year.

 

That's why, maybe its not so wise to be as reliant on the draft for talent as Ryan is. There is only one way to get those top picks.

[ThePuck]

That's why, maybe its not so wise to be as reliant on the draft for talent as Ryan is. There is only one way to get those top picks.

 

Not only that, but there's talent throughout the draft.

[Brandon]

There's very little innovation listed in this post.

 

What is listed is a solid, fundamental way of approaching baseball scouting and management, which is perfectly fine. Innovation can be important but only when it works... and it often doesn't.

 

There's nothing wrong with not being innovative about everything. But to compete in the market without innovation, you have to be really good at your fundamentals. Scouting, drafting, picking the right pieces at the right time to complement existing pieces.

 

Ryan was very good at doing this from 1998 to 2005-ish, after which the team fell off a cliff with the biggest aspect of fundamental-based, non-innovative managing: the draft. Some of this was poor decisions, some of it bad luck. In the end, it meant failure.

 

Ryan doesn't have to re-invent the wheel to win in baseball. He has to trust his baseball acumen, hire the right scouts, and focus on the things he excels at doing. Can he do that? Hard to say... the results in Minnesota thus far have been atrocious but his drafts look good, his trades look pretty good, and he's doing a lot of things right. Only time will tell whether it's enough.

 

I titled it innovative more so as a responce to the story about no innovation from the Twins as this is story highlights the framework in which they build there team here.

[LaBombo]

Sometimes one has to look back before they can look forward. We need to understand the themes of the past, evaluate and then look to the future. This is a good exercise.

Sphinx? Is that you? You were great in Mystery Men!

http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/image_film/MysteryMen_24.jpg

[Brandon]

A couple of things about this post,

 

It was a bigger undertaking than i figured it would be. I would have liked to put more into showing examples and i may go back and do that in a series of posts. But you can see the framework of what TR is trying to do to rebuild the team its very similar to what they have done in the past. For Example: This last season Willingham, Doumit underperformed as seasoned vets, Morneau would have likely hit 20 had he stayed here all season, Dozier was close and Parmalee and Plouffe missed the mark as well. Thats 5 plus 1 surprise player meant to be the 20 HR 75-85 RBI crowd I was talking about. THe offense way underperformed expectations this season.

 

2, The point that we don't need an ace isnt that we don't need one, but the importance of 5 starters who are solid each time out and i explained why that was important. Here is a reason why an ace isn't as important as you think in the long haul.

 

1 pitcher 180 inning with 2.5 era = 1.667

4 pitchers 180 innings each with 4 era = 2.667

 

the weighted average of runs allowed is 2.467 which is .21 runs lower per game at a cost close to 15-20 million or even more per season vs our bullpen which has a low era. I know its in the low 3's and the entire bullen costs less then that and we get more innings from the group. I would venture that our current bullpen is worth more than an ace pitcher.

 

 

I am at work so i will continue this post later this evening.

[Winston Smith]

Moderator note - please tone down the rhetoric.

 

I have no idea what I should tone down.

[old nurse]

I'm not sure I agree with the breakdown of which team was better looking at that comparison, but to each their own. And yes, Cards did some trades we wouldn't do...but you blame salary issues. They've only broken 100M over the last 3 years...during a time we could have done the same. Maybe some of it also had to do with not being willing to trade prospects for quality players (Holliday) or sign some top end FAs (Beltran, Berkman).

 

Regardless, the point still stands...there is talent to be had throughout the draft.

 

Yes there is talent to be had throughout the draft. What objective standard do you use to judge if a team drafts well? IE. number of players that make it to the majors, some benchmark of career war? Team victories?

[ThePuck]

Yes there is talent to be had throughout the draft. What objective standard do you use to judge if a team drafts well? IE. number of players that make it to the majors, some benchmark of career war? Team victories?

 

My whole point was to say that using the fact that we've drafted low for so long as a reason for so little talent drafted is an excuse more than anything else because talent can be had throughout the draft. Are you disputing this or not, because that was the whole point of my post.

 

I never even claimed we had drafted poorly in my original post, did I, besides pointing out ONE draft...the first draft that came to mind because of Myers? So why was automatic defense mode activated?

 

I pointed to St Louis who has been in a similar boat. I could have used the As I guess...heck, practically any team really...not that it makes much difference when the overall point is....which is there's talent up and down the draft...serious talent is found past the #20 pick of the first round all the time.

[drivlikejehu]

I would venture that our current bullpen is worth more than an ace pitcher.

 

I am at work so i will continue this post later this evening.

 

I'll save you the trouble: this assertion is completely false. The reason is that it is much easier to pitch in relief than to start, and so while teams can put together effective bullpens on the cheap, ace pitchers are extremely difficult to find.

 

Here's a simple thought experiment: would a team trade the Twins an ace pitcher for the Twins' bullpen? The answer is obviously no. Only Perkins has real value and by himself he wouldn't even bring back a #3 starter.

 

It's also invalid to argue that TR is blameless because players "underperformed" an expectation that doesn't exist. The front office is responsible for fielding a team that actually will perform, not one that it wrongly thinks will.

[Willihammer]

Not only that, but there's talent throughout the draft.

 

But as a rule, teams who draft in the top 10 are getting the choicest cuts and everyone after is fighting over scraps. You only need to get to the 2nd round before the odds of your pick even getting a cup of coffee begin to dip under 50%.

 

If my math is right, each draft produces players who for their careers produce a total of 380 WAR (on average). About 100 of that will come from the top 10 picks. So there are 10 teams fighting over 100 WAR in the top 10, and 30 teams fighting over 280 WAR in picks 11-1200. That's an average of about 9.3 WAR per team per draft - again, for the players entire career(s), after you toss out the top 10.

 

Get a top 10 pick however, and you are playing at much, much better odds and you stand to more than double your product

[LaBombo]

One of the precious few advantages of being regarded as sort of a dink is that it allows you to disagree with one of the most virally popular posts in recent memory without really losing any standing. So here goes.

 

Pitching Rule #2: You don't need an ace to win, you need 5 solid starters. What did I just say. We don't need an ace, but we had Santana all those years... One of the most successful seasons in franchise history was the 2010 Twins team. If you go back and look at the rotation, we had Pavano 220 innings 3.75 ERA, Liriano (almost an ace) with 191.2 innings and 3.62 ERA, Baker 170.1/ 4.49, Blackburn 161 / 5.42 and Slowey 155 / 4.45. Pelfry, Corriea, Dedunno, and 2012 Diamond fit that mold.

Maybe you don't need an ace to reach the postseason, but it must be an awfully big help. Pretty much every team in the playoffs either has at least one pitcher that fits what most people would loosely define as an ace, or one who pitched like one (Bartolo Colon). Liriano was one of the 10 best starters in all of MLB by virtually any measure other than wins, btw. And I will eat a whole theater-sized box of Black Crows, my least favorite candy in the world, if the Twins make the playoffs with even two of those four names in the rotation.

The media and stat heads focus on K's and BB's and that's part of it but ultimately the question is can we have a pitcher with a 4.00 era that pitches between 180 and 200 innings. (there was the mistake of Mays and Blackburns extentions).

Ignoring strikeouts and worshipping the lack of walks is exactly how the Twins ended up wasting time and money on Mays, Blackburn, Silva, Marquis, Ramon Ortiz, Sidney Ponson, and a bunch of other names that nobody wants to hear any more.

Rule #4 The bullpen is a great way to gain wins at a minimal cost.

Totally agree, and a really good history you put together.

 

Rule#5 Defense wins games:

It certainly can't hurt, and the Twins could definitely stand to improve theirs, but it really doesn't correlate to winning very strongly. Defensive metrics are certainly not as accurate as the offensive and pitching kind, but they're good enough that they give at least some idea of a team's overall defensive abilty. And at least for this year, they show that a few good defensive teams, a few average ones, and a few bad ones made the playoffs.

 

Rule#6 Smart baserunning is the hidden secret to the Twins scoring so much without hitting the expensive longball. The Twins were never the team to lead the league in stolen bases but they did execute more bunts, bunt singles to get on base, run from 1B to 3B on a single

We hear that alot, but there's not much evidence to support it. Much, much more important to the Twins is the incredibly expensive non-secret of Joe Mauer getting on base. The Twins' ability to score runs in the future will be mostly based on how successful they are at building an affordable supporting cast around him that can do likewise.

 

Also, the run expectancy tables you refer to, along with other stuff, shows that bunting doesn't do much to help runs score. Smart baserunning in general is good, but again, there doesn't seem to be much correlation between good baserunning and winning.

 

Rule #7 The lineup is better off with 20 HR /75-85RBI or .270/.330/.370 hitters 1-8 than 1 35HR hitter and several holes in the lineup.

This part surprised me. It seemed to me that most postseason teams tend to have at least one 30 HR guy, but at least at a glance, that's not the case. It's pretty routine for a team to make the playoffs without one. With any luck Sano will make it a non-issue anyway.

 

As for the piranhas, they can soil their uniforms (from the outside, hopefully), dive for grounders hit right at them, slide head first into the dugout after scoring a run, and get into lots of battles where their tails come off, just as long as, like you said, they get on base.

 

So from my minority perspective, you have some good thoughts there, mixed in with some stuff that not only doesn't seem innovative, it seems kind of like telling Ryan that if he runs harder and keeps his head lower, he'll crash through the brick wall eventually.

[old nurse]

My whole point was to say that using the fact that we've drafted low for so long as a reason for so little talent drafted is an excuse more than anything else because talent can be had throughout the draft. Are you disputing this or not, because that was the whole point of my post.

 

I never even claimed we had drafted poorly in my original post, did I, besides pointing out ONE draft...the first draft that came to mind because of Myers? So why was automatic defense mode activated?

 

I pointed to St Louis who has been in a similar boat. I could have used the As I guess...heck, practically any team really...not that it makes much difference when the overall point is....which is there's talent up and down the draft...serious talent is found past the #20 pick of the first round all the time.

 

But you claim that St Louis has drafted well and do not refute that the Twins have drafted poorly, hence the question

[LaBombo]

The reason is that it is much easier to pitch in relief than to start, and so while teams can put together effective bullpens on the cheap, ace pitchers are extremely difficult to find.

Will just add that this has been quantified pretty precisely with the eery 'Rule of 17's'. Starter BABIP is 17 points higher than relief, starter home run rate is 17% higher, and starter K rate is 17% lower.

[ThePuck]

But as a rule, teams who draft in the top 10 are getting the choicest cuts and everyone after is fighting over scraps. You only need to get to the 2nd round before the odds of your pick even getting a cup of coffee begin to dip under 50%.

 

If my math is right, each draft produces players who for their careers produce a total of 380 WAR (on average). About 100 of that will come from the top 10 picks. So there are 10 teams fighting over 100 WAR in the top 10, and 30 teams fighting over 280 WAR in picks 11-1200. That's an average of about 9.3 WAR per team per draft - again, for the players entire career(s), after you toss out the top 10.

 

Get a top 10 pick however, and you are playing at much, much better odds and you stand to more than double your product

 

I never claimed a team's odds weren't better if drafting higher...not at all...but there are teams who have drafted late and have gotten real talent from the draft....and also got talent in FA and by trading prospects to get talent. St Louis comes to mind.

 

Blaming our lack of ML talent on drafting in the 2nd half of the draft for so many years doesn't cut it...because the draft isn't the only way to get talent and because talent is there to had had past the 20th pick of round one if it's able to be recognized, drafted and properly developed. Basically, blaming our talent woes on low draft position holds no water.

[ThePuck]

But you claim that St Louis has drafted well and do not refute that the Twins have drafted poorly, hence the question

I claim St Louis has drafted well because they have. I also claim St Louis has done a good job of getting talent using all avenues, cause they have. They continue to win, even drafting low. As does Oakland. And there's a team that can still actually claim money problems.

 

As far as refuting the statement the Twins have drafted poorly, who said that and why is it my job to refute it? The problem is, a person says something, and you try to drag that person's comments to another place in order to try to defend this organization. I'd rather stick to defending things I actually say. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will have the 'who has drafted the best over the some preconceived time frame' debate with you, but it's not a debate that really interests me. Start a thread and have at it.

[Willihammer]

I never claimed a team's odds weren't better if drafting higher...not at all...but there are teams who have drafted late and have gotten real talent from the draft....and also got talent in FA and by trading prospects to get talent. St Louis comes to mind.

 

Blaming our lack of ML talent on drafting in the 2nd half of the draft for so many years doesn't cut it...because the draft isn't the only way to get talent and because talent is there to had had past the 20th pick of round one if it's able to be recognized, drafted and properly developed. Basically, blaming our talent woes on low draft position holds no water.

 

I agree. I only wonder if people realize how incredibly fruitful and easy it is to get talent in the top 10, and how incredibly hard and chancy it is to find talent later in the draft. That's why, if your entire rebuilding strategy is draft-centric, it seems to follow that you might intentionally tank the on-field product.

[ThePuck]

I agree. I only wonder if people realize how incredibly fruitful and easy it is to get talent in the top 10, and how incredibly hard and chancy it is to find talent later in the draft. That's why, if your entire rebuilding strategy is draft-centric, it seems to follow that you might intentionally tank the on-field product.

 

Well, yeah, but there's many case of top 10 picks busting too...you have to pick the right guys AND develop them properly. I do believe that if you almost exclusively count on drafted talent to be a contender, you better draft and develop better than most other teams. Look how long the Pirates and KC drafted high...and they're only now seeing the benefits...so drafting high is no guarantee for success and drafting low is now guarantee for failure. The odds are just better drafting high. Just like there's no guarantee money gets you to the playoffs, but I THINK if one looks at the time frame when spending started really booming in MLB, the bigger spenders spent more time in the playoffs. Of course there are exceptions...always...to everything.

[ashbury]

I have no idea what I should tone down.

 

I'll take a crack at it as a fellow moderator, though I don't want to further derail discussion: your post was a case of "talking past each other" rather than addressing anything in the OP's lengthy thesis, and in particular the turn of phrase "failure at trying to be mediocre" seemed intended to inflame rather than encourage civility.

[glunn]

I have no idea what I should tone down.

 

"Failure at trying to be the best I can live with, failure at trying to be mediocre, not so much."

[glunn]

I'll take a crack at it as a fellow moderator, though I don't want to further derail discussion: your post was a case of "talking past each other" rather than addressing anything in the OP's lengthy thesis, and in particular the turn of phrase "failure at trying to be mediocre" seemed intended to inflame rather than encourage civility.

 

That is what I was referring to -- thanks, John.

[Winston Smith]

That is what I was referring to -- thanks, John.

 

Sorry I wasn't trying to inflame anyone just expressing my opinion. I'll do my best to stay away for a while.