How the Twins Front Office Addressed Past Playoff Weaknesses

 

That's one article ranking AL rotations, not #1 starters. Do you actually think Hyun-Jun Ryu is better than Maeda? Who in Oakland's rotation is better than Maeda? Chris Bassitt??

I have seen Maeda have one great season - is it an outlier or is that who he is now.  I am always worried about the career year, especially when it is a short season.  Not ready to crown him the ace we all want.  Glad we have him, but let's see another season of similar production. Ryu 17 WAR, Maeda 7 WAR.  Who has proven the most?  And I do not claim Ryu is an ACE, but I am not ready to claim Maeda is either. 

 

I wasn't thinking Bassit, but he had 2.1 WAR last year and Maeda had 1.5.  I am not against Maeda, but I worry about overrating our players versus the rest of the teams.

 

Is that article about which teams have the best rotation, or the best #1 starter? Because the issue was clearly the latter.

 

Who on the A's staff is clearly better than Maeda? Who on the Blue Jays staff is clearly better?

I will say the same thing that I told Nick Nelson, Maeda has had one great season and it was a short one.  Ryu has a longer history.  Ryu 17 WAR, Maeda 7.  Do we judge players on just one year?  Is Maris the greatest HR hitter because of 1961?  

I will say the same thing that I told Nick Nelson, Maeda has had one great season and it was a short one. Ryu has a longer history. Ryu 17 WAR, Maeda 7. Do we judge players on just one year? Is Maris the greatest HR hitter because of 1961?

If was a Yankees fan in 1961, I’d want Roger Maris on my team in 1962.

 

No one has said Maeda is the greatest pitcher in the league.

 

Which is what I said about Gerrit Cole.

 

Sure. I wasn't responding to that, I was responding to your comment about Syndergaard.

 

But even with the trades that did really happen, fans engage in extreme hindsight bias, along the lines of why did 19 clubs or whatever pass on drafting Trout. So while it's potentially a legitimate area of discussion, it doesn't cut it to just say "Gerrit Cole" as a knock on the front office without context. You can play that game with all 30 clubs.

The current regime is basically 0-6 in series games. The 2017 was still Ryan's team. 

 

2020 and 2019 once again proved if you do not score runs it is hard to win in the playoffs. To have the starter have to pitch a shutout to win is a high expectation to the point of being impossible. The bats have to hit  They have done nothing to change that

 

I will say the same thing that I told Nick Nelson, Maeda has had one great season and it was a short one.  Ryu has a longer history.  Ryu 17 WAR, Maeda 7.  Do we judge players on just one year?  Is Maris the greatest HR hitter because of 1961?  

Maeda has had only one other season as a full time starter. That was a rookie year when he managed a respectable 3.4 ERA. It is hard to make much of a declaration of greatness, nor that he is mediocre. 

 

It was 11 starts. 66 innings. Meada has had runs like that in nearly every season

2016 - First 12 starts, 70 innings. 2.70 era

2017 - 11 starts (counting 2 innings in relief b/c i don't want to do math) 65inning, 2.63 era

2018 - 11 starts 64innings, 2.64 era

etc

 

He had a nice season but it was only 66 innings. Phil Hughes gave us a 6+ WAR season. Liriano and Pavano and Berrios and Ervin all gave us better seasons since Johan. 

 

My complaint in this thread hasn't been to say Maeda sucks or the Twins suck. I think in pretty much each post I said this is probably a playoff team. My point has been that some of the exuberance for this team is a bit misplaced. The idea that Cole is the only starter on a contender that you'd take ahead of Maeda is insane. I'd take Berrios over Maeda and I wouldn't be shocked if Pineda is better than him this year. 

What year was that when Pineda pitched a whole year with an ERA under 3.5?

 

How many other AL contenders have a better #1 starter than Kenta Maeda? New York... anyone else? Cleveland

 

Cleveland. You can say they aren't contenders, but they are currently tied for first.

 

It was 11 starts. 66 innings. Meada has had runs like that in nearly every season

2016 - First 12 starts, 70 innings. 2.70 era

2017 - 11 starts (counting 2 innings in relief b/c i don't want to do math) 65inning, 2.63 era

2018 - 11 starts 64innings, 2.64 era

etc

 

He had a nice season but it was only 66 innings. Phil Hughes gave us a 6+ WAR season. Liriano and Pavano and Berrios and Ervin all gave us better seasons since Johan. 

 

My complaint in this thread hasn't been to say Maeda sucks or the Twins suck. I think in pretty much each post I said this is probably a playoff team. My point has been that some of the exuberance for this team is a bit misplaced. The idea that Cole is the only starter on a contender that you'd take ahead of Maeda is insane. I'd take Berrios over Maeda and I wouldn't be shocked if Pineda is better than him this year. 

 

Look I could see where you were coming from in that first post in some ways.  Yeah I am concerned about how Maeda will do over a full season.  Yeah HR or bust hasn't seemed to work well in playoffs.  Would I have liked to see slightly better pen arms especially in playoffs, you bet. I haven't looked into your comment about the defense last year but it could be right, I don't know. Sure this team could exceed expectations or fall flat we have seen them do both.  

 

However, the hyperbole about "This is the least I've cared about a Twins team going into a season in over fifteen years" and "This should be a make or break year for the FO and it doesn't look much different than other offseasons."  Those statements kind of set me off.  I just vehemently disagree with both of them.  You certainly have a right to your opinion but when posted also a right to be questioned.

 

Honestly I am not trying to be a dick, but I think you are lacking some objectivity in some of your assessments.  

 

The lead is being buried. Instead of pretending like it was just luck of the draw, live and learn kind of thing.....why aren’t they getting roundly criticized for putting together a bullpen that relied on the rotting corpse of Sergio Romo in the ninth inning of a playoff game? Everyone could see that guy was cooked. Awful decision making and roster management.

Replacing May with Colome doesn’t get this team over the hump. We’re now seeing them trying recycle the skeletal remains of what used to be Hansel Robles, fresh off an ERA over 10. Why? Because he was a bargain....gee, I wonder why. How much you want to bet we see him blow it in a huge spot?

Then, next year, they’ll again make a couple of inconsequential moves....we’ll again pretend that they’re the brilliant American Pickers out there finding diamonds in the rough, and things are going to be different.

 

And yet "the brilliant American Pickers out there finding diamonds in the rough" had the 5th best bullpen in all of baseball.  Man those other 25 GM's must really be bad.  Of those that were worse than this FO includes the World Series winning Dodgers as well who came in 10th.

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/top-bullpens-in-mlb-2020

It was 11 starts. 66 innings. Meada has had runs like that in nearly every season

2016 - First 12 starts, 70 innings. 2.70 era

2017 - 11 starts (counting 2 innings in relief b/c i don't want to do math) 65inning, 2.63 era

2018 - 11 starts 64innings, 2.64 era

etc

 

He had a nice season but it was only 66 innings. Phil Hughes gave us a 6+ WAR season. Liriano and Pavano and Berrios and Ervin all gave us better seasons since Johan.

 

My complaint in this thread hasn't been to say Maeda sucks or the Twins suck. I think in pretty much each post I said this is probably a playoff team. My point has been that some of the exuberance for this team is a bit misplaced. The idea that Cole is the only starter on a contender that you'd take ahead of Maeda is insane. I'd take Berrios over Maeda and I wouldn't be shocked if Pineda is better than him this year.

Maeda—and any other pitcher—can only play in the games that are scheduled. He pitched extremely well in those games last year. A full season at that level would produce north of 6 fWAR. Liriano had one or two years that were comparable. You mentioned Hughes’ one good season. Ervin Santana was water in the desert, but he never had a season for the Twins that came close.

 

Obviously Maeda is a regression candidate. No one has said he’ll perfectly reproduce his 2020 over a full season. But he did post career bests in K%, BB%, K/9, BB/9, K/BB, exit velocity, and hard hit %. And he didn’t outperform his peripherals. They all support his excellent performance and suggest that he made real strides.

 

My gripe is that some folks don’t seem to appreciate how good Maeda actually was last year, or that the front office made a smart and creative trade to bring him here.

 

I also don’t understand the pessimism. I don’t expect the Twins to win 100 games or anything (though I happen to believe they’re a legit World Series contender), but to say this team is less exciting than the squads of the mid-teens—when the rotation consisted of people like Cole De Vries, Sam Deduno, and Pedro Hernandez—is mind boggling and frankly comes off as trolling.

 

The team lost 100 games in 2016. By then, Buxton had made his catastrophic rookie debut, Sano had raised serious questions about his ability to not strike out and actually tap into his immense raw power in live action, and there were no obviously good pitching prospects other than Berrios, who had just made half a season's worth of starts at the MLB level with an ERA over 8. This was unambiguously not the rosy situation you remember.

 

In only a couple of years, Falvey and Levine have completely overhauled the team's player development system. They have modernized their approach to acquiring and developing pitchers. They have signed and traded for multiple impact players—Maeda, Colome, Donaldson, Odorizzi, and Pineda probably being the most notable. The majority of their transactions have indeed been unremarkable, but that's true of all 30 MLB teams. No one makes major transactions the majority of the time. Not one single team. There are only so many superstars to go around. Nonetheless, Falvey and Levine have built a consistent winner in Minnesota, and they've done so largely by raising the team's floor. This is a good team, and I'm sorry you aren't looking forward to watching them. Yes, it can all break down if certain players under perform or get hurt. But I guess I'd be angry as a Yankees fan if Cole, Judge, Stanton, etc. got hurt. I might believe Cashman didn't do enough during the off-season. I'd probably be wrong, though.

It wasn't rosy at the major league level that particular season, but the young players in the organization at that time have played a massive role in the success the club has had the last few years. Does that not seem like a fortuitous situation to inherit? 

 

IMO Cruz is probably their most impactful signing/trade and you left him off your list. I'll pick on the other names just a bit though. Odorizzi was subpar in '18, he had a really nice first half in '19 before regressing in the second, and he was pretty meh in a short season last year. Pineda missed '18 due to recovery (as expected at the time of signing) and then missed half of '19 due to injury and a suspension. He started 5 games last season and didn't throw an inning in the postseason because the Twins were swept.....again. I wouldn't add Colome to any impact list. Donaldson certainly is the biggest move the FO has made, and I supported it, but he missed over half of last season due to injuries. Maeda had a great year. I tend to agree with gunnarthor's assessment of him moving forward, but he was impressive last year, even if it was only 11 games. 

 

At least at the major league level, I'm not sure I'd say this FO is responsible for the complete turnaround. As has been pointed out, they've augmented the roster, and I think there's legitimate debate as to how well they've done that. Of course there's the modern revamping that has gone on behind the curtain so to speak, and we haven't had a chance to see most of the draft picks from '17 to present day. My push back is directed at the notion this FO inherited a roster that needed to be rebuilt. 

 

I do think it's pretty "controversial," insofar as every statement in that paragraph is either factually wrong or highly embellished. And just the general tenor of your comments is completely out of touch with reality in every possible way . . . from what's reasonable to expect from the minors, what amount of depth clubs have, how easy it apparently should be to acquire elite starting pitching with a mid-level payroll . . . the bottom line is that your take cannot be rationally justified. It's just an example of complaining for the sake (and enjoyment of) complaining.

Every statement huh? 

 

In '19 KC and Detroit lost over 100 games while the Sox lost 89. The Twins didn't benefit? 

Kyle Gibson and Martin Perez soaked up starts that entire year. Guys like Matt Magill and Blake Parker were getting innings in the bullpen. That's depth? 

The Pressly trade wasn't a bad one? 

 

I don't see the irrationality in pointing these out. 

 

Reality check: This is not a "make or break year for the FO." They completely turned around a mess of a franchise and have produced the best W% for a Twins team in the past 50 years in 2019/20. I know a lot of fans are cranky about postseason losses but the front office is not being held primarily responsible for that. Nor should they be. They have given themselves plenty of leash.

I don't understand how you can give full credit to this FO when it comes to "completely turning around a mess of a franchise," but then not hold them primarily responsible when the team flames out in the postseason. If this team is their creation, and we laud them for the division titles and regular season win percentage, why don't they share an equivalent level of blame for the postseason failures? 

 

Every statement huh? 

 

In '19 KC and Detroit lost over 100 games while the Sox lost 89. The Twins didn't benefit? 

Kyle Gibson and Martin Perez soaked up starts that entire year. Guys like Matt Magill and Blake Parker were getting innings in the bullpen. That's depth? 

The Pressly trade wasn't a bad one? 

 

I don't see the irrationality in pointing these out. 

 

Yes, every statement. Zero of the statements are supported by any actual facts or comparisons to other, presumably smarter/better MLB clubs. It's just meaningless, baseless, half-witted trash talk. If you want to get into a legitimate discussion on any of those points, feel free to make the case in a detailed manner.

 

All good clubs beat up on bad teams. All good clubs have some mediocre pitchers in the back end of the bullpen. That's just how things are. Even an anecdotal measure of success is per se illegitimate if no club could pass the test, let alone one with payroll constraints.

 

I didn't say they were less exciting then those cruddy Twins teams, I said this was the least excited I had been about a Twins team in a long time. I also said they play boring baseball. And I said they were a playoff team.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I just don't see a distinction between "this team is less exciting than previous [objectively crappy] ones" and "I am the least excited I've been about a Twins team in a long time." I don't have the post pulled up, but I think in an earlier one you even said the bad ones were more exciting for you. Again, that's your right. It's just confusing to me, especially given the run of good baseball the team has played over the last couple years.

 

Every statement huh? 

 

The Pressly trade wasn't a bad one? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, every statement. Zero of the statements are supported by any actual facts or comparisons to other, presumably smarter/better MLB clubs. It's just meaningless, baseless, half-witted trash talk. If you want to get into a legitimate discussion on any of those points, feel free to make the case in a detailed manner.

 

All good clubs beat up on bad teams. All good clubs have some mediocre pitchers in the back end of the bullpen. That's just how things are. Even an anecdotal measure of success is per se illegitimate if no club could pass the test, let alone one with payroll constraints.

I provided detail, and rather than respond to it, you offered a sweeping generalization, "that's just how things are," and attacked the original post as "half-witted trash talk." Hopefully the irony there isn't lost. 

 

Yes, good teams do beat bad teams; that wasn't the point of contention. The question was to what extent the Twins benefitted from doing so. The AL central had three teams with a record in the bottom third of the league that season. Both KC and Detroit lost over 100 games.The Twins played 1/3 of their games against those three terrible teams. No team outside of Cleveland came close to matching that. 

 

Yes, even good teams carry some mediocre pitching, but again, that wasn't what was being called into question. The disagreement was over depth/upside and I specifically brought up the pitching staff. Perez and Gibson spent the entire year in the rotation and both were below league  average. Parker, the opening day "closer," was DFA'd right before the trade deadline. Kohl Stewart and Matt Magill took turns being ineffective/awful. Thorpe came up later in the season and joined that party. Ryne Harper, a minor league signing, made it almost the entire season with the team, and he was one of the bright spots. None of that screams depth or upside, at least on the pitching side of things.  

 

 

How long are you gonna die on the hill that the Pressly trade was bad?  The year he was traded we were out of it and didn't need him.  The next year while the bullpen initially struggled they were good until the playoffs.  But Pressly was hurt that year anyway and wouldn't have been able to help us.  And even if I indulge you and say he wouldn't have been hurt and could have helped us that year the offense never scored any runs so it wouldn't have mattered anyway.  Could they have gotten him to re-sign, maybe, but odds are someone would have offered more money and he would have been lost for NOTHING.

 

Instead the Twins got 6 controllable years of two players.  One of which made his MLB debut and put up pretty much the same or slightly better numbers than Pressly did last year in his first year.  We have 5 more years of control left at cheaper rates what's not to like.  

 

Oh and lets not forget we also might have 6 years of control for an elite defensive center fielder.  Granted it is early and if he can't hit could be a fourth outfielder so we'll have to wait and see., but that is a trade a good FO makes every day of the week and twice on Sundays.  

 

It was one point amongst a few, so I wouldn't call it a hill I'm willing to die on. We'll just disagree whether that '19 bullpen would've been better off with an elite reliever. I have 0 interest in debating the butterfly effect regarding his injury. Alcala certainly could be a nice piece for the Twins, but again, we'll disagree on whether every good FO trades a known commodity from a position of need for a couple lottery tickets. 

 

I provided detail, and rather than respond to it, you offered a sweeping generalization, "that's just how things are," and attacked the original post as "half-witted trash talk." Hopefully the irony there isn't lost. 

 

Yes, good teams do beat bad teams; that wasn't the point of contention. The question was to what extent the Twins benefitted from doing so. The AL central had three teams with a record in the bottom third of the league that season. Both KC and Detroit lost over 100 games.The Twins played 1/3 of their games against those three terrible teams. No team outside of Cleveland came close to matching that. 

 

Yes, even good teams carry some mediocre pitching, but again, that wasn't what was being called into question. The disagreement was over depth/upside and I specifically brought up the pitching staff. Perez and Gibson spent the entire year in the rotation and both were below league  average. Parker, the opening day "closer," was DFA'd right before the trade deadline. Kohl Stewart and Matt Magill took turns being ineffective/awful. Thorpe came up later in the season and joined that party. Ryne Harper, a minor league signing, made it almost the entire season with the team, and he was one of the bright spots. None of that screams depth or upside, at least on the pitching side of things.  

 

Complaining at greater length without facts is not "detail."

 

If you want to argue that the current regime has mishandled something - let's take the bullpen just as an example - here are some details you would need to include:

 

- what the new regime inherited (Majors and Minors)

- what the proper allocation of resources (i.e., payroll or trade assets) should have been for the bullpen, based on analysis of successful teams and considering payroll constraints

- what resources were actually allocated

- how the same resources could have been allocated more efficiently without reliance on hindsight bias

 

That would be the absolute bare minimum for a cogent argument. Neither you nor any other critics have seriously considered these issues, beyond a blanket statement early in the thread that the current regime inherited a basically perfect situation. But that wasn't substantiated with facts.

 

Saying the name "Matt Magill" doesn't constitute an actual argument. If you want to seriously address the issue, by all means, have at it. None of your posts have even touched on the points that would be required to do so.
 

 

He hasn't but that doesn't really matter. He's managed three 3+ WAR seasons already and his career fip is 3.63. Playing in the AL East didn't help his numbers, he's getting older and a bit rounder, but he could certainly have Ervin Santana like season where he stays healthy and is constantly good. Keeping him is actually one of Levine's better moves, IMO. I would not be shocked at all if he was our second best starter over the full season. 

Kenta Maeda by your reasoning could also be the star with his 3.69 fip as a starter

 

Complaining at greater length without facts is not "detail."

 

If you want to argue that the current regime has mishandled something - let's take the bullpen just as an example - here are some details you would need to include:

 

- what the new regime inherited (Majors and Minors)

- what the proper allocation of resources (i.e., payroll or trade assets) should have been for the bullpen, based on analysis of successful teams and considering payroll constraints

- what resources were actually allocated

- how the same resources could have been allocated more efficiently without reliance on hindsight bias

 

That would be the absolute bare minimum for a cogent argument. Neither you nor any other critics have seriously considered these issues, beyond a blanket statement early in the thread that the current regime inherited a basically perfect situation. But that wasn't substantiated with facts.

 

Saying the name "Matt Magill" doesn't constitute an actual argument. If you want to seriously address the issue, by all means, have at it. None of your posts have even touched on the points that would be required to do so.
 

I could jump through those hoops and spend time mapping out relievers that could've been targeted, corresponding roster moves to adjust for payroll, ect, but that'd be a huge waste of my time. You've already set yourself up to dismiss anything I'd post as hindsight bias. That's the game right? Everything you disagree with is "complaining," "half-witted trash talk," or "illogical," because you're the self appointed arbiter of cogency. 

 

That's a mischaracterization in two different ways. I never used the phrase "perfect situation," and I followed up my claim that team outlook was less gloomy than was being portrayed by pointing to the young talent that's been integral to the success over the last few seasons; it wasn't a blanket statement that I left alone.

 

Your responses to both myself and others are at best mild flame bait. Why they're being upheld in this thread is beyond me, but it's clear the intent isn't debate here. 

 

Because baseball is a game of sample sizes my friend, and 137-85 weighs a lot more heavily than 0-5. They aren't remotely equivalent so they're not treated as such. Regardless of what people want to believe, there is NOT some magical formula for winning in the playoffs that's different from the regular season. The bats coming up short against Houston was not a failure of planning, that was an extremely well-built offense marred by injuries and bad performances.

The winning the last few seasons is because this FO built them to do so, but getting swept in 2 games by Houston, or 3 games by NY, or getting smashed in a WC game is just bad luck? I guess you can have your cake and eat it too.