Are the Twins About to Build a Radically Unconventional Pitching Staff?

17 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

People like referencing Tampa Bay, but would never accept the methodology the Rays employ. We wouldn't even be talking about a Buxton extension. He wouldn't even have gotten an offer from the Rays because every team in baseball would know he was going to be traded. Kepler, Polanco, Garver, Sano, Donaldson (who wouldn't be on the team to begin with) would all be on the open trade market. At least 3 of the 5 would be gone.

Also, the Rays were miserable for a decade while they built up their farm system and no, they're not "always a contender" as they finished 2014-2017 under .500 every year. The Rays have an unorthodox approach similar to Oakland, but the Rays' have been better at developing pitching than the A's, and the Rays seem to have a little more payroll flexibility when they need it.

There is a tendency to be a little too literal or extreme here.  We don't need to exactly mirror them in order to implement SOME of their practices and philosophies.  We have enough incremental revenue that we certainly could afford to extend players or sign free agents they would not.  As a matter of fact, executing as well as they do would result in having productive low cost players which in turn would provide us payroll flexibility.

We also don't have to have a whole staff of 3 inning guys.  That would never happen.  Why couldn't the formula not be 3 SPs who are expected to pitch 5+ and 6 guys in this other role.  They might go 4 innings and they might go 2 innings but the goal is to get 9 innings or 8 in the case of a road loss.  That leaves 4 traditional BP arms who could also go more than 1 inning given the BP gets the day off anytime those six guys cover 9 innings.  There also does not need to be a rule that a pitcher in this new role could not go 5 or even six innings when they are on a roll.

It's a great idea for this year to given we have a lot of prospects knocking at the door.  I don't know if it's a great long-term strategy because we are far from a well thought through plan.  I do know that it's not a good practice to dismiss strategies without understanding the options and the plan completely and then a reasonable validation effort.

48 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I think this this the type of thing the union would absolutely want to weigh in on, if one of the teams decided it was going to do away with "real" starting pitching, they would also have to do it in the minors and thus reduce salary, and the union isn't going to put up with that.

 

Does the players union have the authority to dictate how a major league team is run?  I don't think so.

One other advantage in using this approach is that more money would be left open to add position players.  You might be now able to sign a Correa or Seager if you spend a lot less on short-inning pitchers.  I think that with all the AAA/AA arms that the Twins brag about that this approach might be perfect for now.  And for those who insist on a big name pitcher, you could sign one of those to pitch every fifth day and give everyone else a day off. 

I like this idea.  I was initially concerned due to roster sizes but like others on this thread have mentioned, we have an advantage with our AAA team so close that we can shuffle in and out pitchers frequently as seen at times last year.  This in effect, increases the roster size to accommodate this strategy.  It also is a slight advantage over teams who have AAA systems further away from their MLB city as they cannot shuffle them as fast.

This also could feed into an evaluation to see which pitchers have the ability to go more rotations through the batting order in an effort to let the cream rise to the top per se.

It also could as others have said, allow us to maintain a high quantity of pictures (split between MLB and AAA) at a reasonable cost allowing $$$ for other areas.

As for nobody wanting to pitch for the Twins with this strategy, we could adjust our contracts to attract them, i.e. paying them based on quality statistics without worrying about innings pitched.

In summary, I would not be disappointed in the Twins if they were on the forefront to try this method.  Even if it fails, they can revert back, but heck, I like thinking outside the box and trying things that may be unconventional.  That's how you get ahead of the competition.

There were 12 teams in baseball whose starters average less then 5 innings per start. The Twins were one of them.

Tampa Bay with the best record win the American League got about 14 outs per game from there starters. The third fewest in baseball. They pitched even fewer innings in 2019.

5 years ago Cincinnati starters had the fewest innings in baseball with 859 innings. That would have been 4th most in 2021.

So baseball has quickly been trending away from long innings from starters. Anyone who has been a baseball fan for a long time remembers starters who made 40 starts a year with over 20 complete games and 300+ innings. When was the last time you saw that.

The future I expect to see guys who train as 4, 3 & 2 innings pitchers with no thought to starter or reliever. The matchups will move from game to game, with no real set "rotation" which won't exist anymore.

3 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

Does the players union have the authority to dictate how a major league team is run?  I don't think so...

The CBA covers how how players are paid, how much they're paid, how players are rostered, and changes to the games rules. MLB does not have the right to change rules without the MLBPA's approval unless there has been at least one year of negotiation under the current CBA, for example.

https://d39ba378-ae47-4003-86d3-147e4fa6e51b.filesusr.com/ugd/b0a4c2_95883690627349e0a5203f61b93715b5.pdf

It's 373 pages long. Read it at your leisure, but know it will be null and void in like 2 weeks, haha.

18 hours ago, specialiststeve said:

Need to penny up and get a top end guy that is a one. expensive ... yes but if we are truly wanting to compete is a need. On top of that we need a solid veteran that can be depended on.. not a superstar but dependable.... THEN possibly getting a Velasquez type guy .. low risk high reward. 

The problem is very few of those top end guys you penny up and pay pan out over their deal.  Look up the top 20 paid pitchers and what they get paid to how they have done over their contract.  Only about 3 to 4 lived up to deal, and about half did fine for about half the deal, and the other half were mostly train wrecks for the money they got. If the Twins know which one will be living up to the deal, great, but breaking bank on 1 guy that plays less than 1/5th of the innings played in a season, That is a huge risk.  It also fills only 1 hole, even if it works out great, but then you have to save on the other 2 holes.  I am not saying they should refuse to sign a top guy, if they truely feel they are worth the risk, but to just say lets go out and overspend everyone on guy x because we need to sign the best player out there, will not set us up for WS. 

As the game evolves, top end starters are losing even more value, they pitch less inning each year meaning at most they influence even less of the games.  Only 4 guys pitched over 200 innings, and they were are barely over 200.  At minimum you have 1,458 innings in a season.  Tat means even the best starters these days influence the game 1/7th of the season, but get paid over like 1/4 of the total payroll for some mid-level payroll teams.  Even in playoffs, look at Dodgers staff, nothing was guaranteed of winning. 

The approach that we have had very recently has been the starter going 4-6 innings, depending on how sharp he was, and the pen taking over with no one pitching more than 2, and most 1 inning from there.  3-6 pitchers a game was the plan going into the game; anything goes south and it is 7.  And it is held down that low because of the 3 batter minimum rule.  My long winded point is, pitch the starters even less and you are looking at 5-7 pitchers a game as the plan going in and maybe more, depending.  In a tight game, every one of these pitchers has to be on that day to come out with a win.  Even one blows up that day and another tight game goes bad.  Over 162 games?  You are realistically talking a 14 man staff with 2-4 AAA guys on the shuttle bus back and forth routinely.  How many years have we had 16-18 major league caliber  pitchers?  Almost half the pitchers in this round robin rotation will be AAA caliber; please don't pretend that this wins divisions or titles.  Bullpen games due to unforeseen circumstances is one thing.  Making it plan A in a 162 game season?  I will stand corrected if it works, but I wouldn't put a plug nickel on it in advance. (and yes, I am saying a starter only going 3 innings or so does not make him a starter, hence a bullpen game)

And there is quite a bit to the concept of pitchers knowing their role on a team.  Knowing every 5th game they get the ball, knowing in what inning of a close game or a blowout you are likely to get the call, and being mentally prepared, as well as physically, to fill that role day in and day out.  Does a "starter" who pitches 3-4 innings still pitch every 5 days?  Does a "middle" reliever have a clue when he will pitch next?  And late inning specialists?  Are there any such things anymore?  I know, I might be overanalyzing a little, but we would be asking pitchers to shed roles they have had since their teenage years and just start over in professional ball; some in their later years.  Pitchers who never know if they will pitch, what part of the game, how many batters, etc., have no way of preparing themselves over a 6 month season, and very well may not like it.  In my extremely humble opinion, if it works all the kudos go to the FO and dugout for making it work and getting the players to buy into it and succeed.  If it doesn't, we clean house in both areas, because this is an area you can't be wrong and just say oops, oh well.   

But Falvey and Levine were supposed to be pitching Gurus, so isn't it a failure if by now they havent developed any pitching and are looking for creative ways to fill the stopgap of a pitching staff?

There is a reason for starters and relievers. Relievers are pitchers who cannot be successful while starting. Usually, that has to do with being unable to fool hitters multiple times because of limited pitch offerings or major splits issues when facing right handed or left handed hitters. Relievers are situational.

Relievers rely much more on mystery than starters do. No matter how you look at it, the more times a hitter sees a pitcher or the more innings a pitcher throws, the more likely the chink in the armor will be magnified. Only going 1.5 times through a line up in 3.0 inning appearances instead of 3 times through a lineup in a 7 inning appearance will only shield the "not good enough to be starters" middle relievers for a short time before exposing all the smoke and mirrors.

The best starters can through lineups over and over while being at least as effective as a middle innings reliever.

If the Twins are committed to rebuilding and potentially losing 100 games in the experiment, they may wind up being correct in the all short innings scenario. Seems strange they'd dump Gant if that was the approach... Then again, Falvey seems to be one of those types always interested in a new project and somebody else's shiny piece of scrap.

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

The CBA covers how how players are paid, how much they're paid, how players are rostered, and changes to the games rules. MLB does not have the right to change rules without the MLBPA's approval unless there has been at least one year of negotiation under the current CBA, for example.

https://d39ba378-ae47-4003-86d3-147e4fa6e51b.filesusr.com/ugd/b0a4c2_95883690627349e0a5203f61b93715b5.pdf

It's 373 pages long. Read it at your leisure, but know it will be null and void in like 2 weeks, haha.

Deciding to use pitchers in a unique or unconventional manner would not be a change in the rules.  Therefore, the union has no say in the matter.

16 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

Sounds like a really unique way to explain a 90 loss season - "We were strapped for pitching and just tried to do the best we could with the hand we were dealt in a creative manner."

This was not worded very well. Sports teams use their players in a way to maximize their success with their rosters on any given day. The better pitchers can go 5-7 innings. The Twins currently are without any experienced pitching and posters are searching for ways or strategies to offset the shortcomings of the Twins pitching staff. Thus, I can see what the post seek to accomplish and responded too quickly, perhaps harshly, although no one has called me task.

A specific problem that I see with the proposed use of the pitchers concerns the effective management of arm wear and tear. Some pitchers struggle to throw in back to back games or three times in a week. Relief pitchers usually have  relegated to the bullpen because their repertoire of offerings is limited and ineffective beyond a few hitters. The staff is stretched that way. Tampa Bay is often used as an example but they indeed have a number of traditional starting pitchers and they ran into problems in the playoffs with tired arms. I'm holding out for at least three decent starting pitchers to allow for frequent but sometimes limited outings from a number of the prospects.

2 hours ago, Trov said:

The problem is very few of those top end guys you penny up and pay pan out over their deal.  Look up the top 20 paid pitchers and what they get paid to how they have done over their contract.  Only about 3 to 4 lived up to deal, and about half did fine for about half the deal, and the other half were mostly train wrecks for the money they got. If the Twins know which one will be living up to the deal, great, but breaking bank on 1 guy that plays less than 1/5th of the innings played in a season, That is a huge risk.  It also fills only 1 hole, even if it works out great, but then you have to save on the other 2 holes.  I am not saying they should refuse to sign a top guy, if they truely feel they are worth the risk, but to just say lets go out and overspend everyone on guy x because we need to sign the best player out there, will not set us up for WS. 

As the game evolves, top end starters are losing even more value, they pitch less inning each year meaning at most they influence even less of the games.  Only 4 guys pitched over 200 innings, and they were are barely over 200.  At minimum you have 1,458 innings in a season.  Tat means even the best starters these days influence the game 1/7th of the season, but get paid over like 1/4 of the total payroll for some mid-level payroll teams.  Even in playoffs, look at Dodgers staff, nothing was guaranteed of winning. 

I have compiled the WAR for all of the free agents pitchers who got 4 years or more and posted those results here.  The very top guys (cole/scherzer types) have done pretty well.  The rest have not been good in aggregate.  I don't think that means we should not sign any of them.  However, the conversation here generally makes it sound like they are the surefire way to success which they are not.

I have been a proponent of a non-traditional pitching staff for the last few years.  Not because I find it more entertaining, I don't think I will but it's an opportunity to find a competitive edge.  I would be just fine with the Twins developing a model that gives us an edge.  Others will follow just as they followed the Rays opener but I would welcome an advantage for a period of time.

I think it sounds appealing in a way, you’d probably have to have games of 5-2-2. However this is what I was thinking as I read the article until you mentioned it. I couldn’t get it out of my mind as I read. 

"The downside of this model is that established MLB starters are probably not going to want to sign on for such unconventional and reduced usage. " And that’s a huge consideration.

The other thing is you’d probably have to go past the 13 limit and frequently be reaching into the Saints pitching staff.

One way it could work is if you signed several very good MLB middle relievers and closers and setup men.

From what I’ve noticed, the Twins when using this method with the opener us it as an excuse to start and/or follow up with inferior type pitchers. That’s why to make the plan work, I don’t think you could rely on Dobnak. He is, in my mind, a guy who might surprise but has been too erratic to plan around. I could see Minaya, Ralph Garza Jr., Duffy, etc. being part of a credible group.

If that’s what they want to do, they’ll do it but I’m a bit reticent. I think to do it they still need a Stroman or Ray to eat a lot of innings and maybe single handedly put the team 10 games above ,500.

32 minutes ago, Nick Nelson said:

They have developed pitching. There are few if any teams in baseball with more quality arms awaiting at the top level of their system. In evaluating them on this front, we can't underestimate the disruptive impact of 2020's canceled MiLB season on health, routines, timelines, etc. It takes 4-5 years to develop pitching from scratch (which is largely what they had to do) and that was Year 4.

Part of the appeal in this plan is that it becomes easier to bring those prospects along in a carefully managed way that also portends more immediate success (because the guys can lean more on their best pitches, not face lineups multiple times, etc.). 

Also, what we're talking about here is taking fringy arms (Griffin Jax, Lewis Thorpe, or free agents like Garrett Richards) and making them more effective by altering their roles and usage. Isn't that the definition of developing pitching?

Let's see, how can I put this..............no.  

I know we all have our own views on this, and I mean no offense when I say the following, but no, that is not the definition of developing pitching.  Taking a minor league system and producing a steady crop of relievers, no matter how many you bring up, might work on a short term basis, but for how long?  I could be convinced, but it would take many years of success using that system to do it, and I am one of those old schoolers who believe starters need to be starters for relievers to be successful and not get burnt before August.  

A practical question:  a starter cannot get a win unless they complete at least 5 innings.  If a starter rarely goes 5 innings, and he can't get a win, who would come to, or stay with, an organization that does not allow him to succeed as a starter?  Official scorers would determine who gets credited with the win the majority of the time (and it can't be the starter), and giving up a run in a close game will give you the loss more often than you get a win.  So how does a starter come out ahead in that system?  He won't, and wouldn't stay because of it.  

At the end of the day, it sounds like a way to continuously limit innings pitched for each pitcher, and keep salaries low by never letting a pitcher establish himself with the numbers worthy of the big money.  Great for a small market team, but not for a team that wants to build a perennial competitive team.   

2 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

Deciding to use pitchers in a unique or unconventional manner would not be a change in the rules.  Therefore, the union has no say in the matter.

A new CBA is going to be negotiated. It's tough to say what the MLBPA will or will not want or how closely they're interested in the deployment of pitchers. They're definitely super interested in the "pitch clock" and other changes MLB has made to how you can deploy pitchers such as how MLB has eliminated the LOOGY. To say the MLBPA has no control over the rules is inaccurate.

With all do respect... a 'forward thinking front office' would not have allowed themselves to get into a predicament with exactly 0 proven starters on their MLB roster going into an off season.

Kudos for them for trying to package 'we may have to go with a poo poo platter approach next year due to our catastrophic lack of foresight and planning' into 'i think with challenge comes opportunity' (did they get that line out of a spider-man cartoon?!).

That verbal gymnastics could just buy them an extra year worth of salary... no shame in that game.

This FO has done some very good things, but make no mistake about it, piss poor long term starting pitching planning is not one of them... and that lack of planning unfortunately is the odds on favorite for the cause of their demise at this point.

2 hours ago, bean5302 said:

A new CBA is going to be negotiated. It's tough to say what the MLBPA will or will not want or how closely they're interested in the deployment of pitchers. They're definitely super interested in the "pitch clock" and other changes MLB has made to how you can deploy pitchers such as how MLB has eliminated the LOOGY. To say the MLBPA has no control over the rules is inaccurate.

"Inaccurate"?  I'll accept that.  But get real.  Does anyone really think that the union will try to push through a rule change that says an MLB manager must designate someone as the authorized starter in every game he pitches and he can't be replaced until he proves himself unworthy of continuing pitching in that game (a paraphrase of what an actual rule would need to be)?

 Very good article Nick, thanks for sharing this. This is what I advocated before the 2021 season started. Create and rely mainly on a group of long relievers. For reason #1 shortened 2020 season, pitcher didn't produced much stamina do to this & some didn't pitch at all. #2 Not to be dependent on a failing short relief group and a weak rotation where the  only work horse we had was Berrios. #3 We can rotate our almost primetime prospects to see what they can do.  Regrettably they didn't do this. They put most of their confidence on stretching the short relief and the rotation and used long relief to mop up games. This is one of the main reasons that I contributed to our spiral downfall IMO.

This season we won't have Berrios The only starters we have to work with so far are 2 unproven rookies that'll be on a short leash. I've advocated  again for a large long relief group to help support the starters that can't pitch over 5 innings (like a form of piggybacking) . Also if the short relief is failing, go with the long relief to finish the game . It'd be nice if we could find maybe 1 or 2 effective work horses but what you said maybe FO might not even go this direction, it sounds extreme. Last year my idea floated like a lead balloon because many can't think beyond their box. I'm willing to give it a try.

I'd like to add 2 more pitchers in this group. One is Alcala, with his new found 3rd pitch, I'd like to stretch him out to eventually become a starter. The 2nd is Chris Archer. I know I'll get a lot of slack but I still believe in him. I know he didn't have very good stats in PIT but neither did other studs that left there and their careers  skyrocketed. When he went to TB he hadn't pitched in a MLB game for well over 1 yr. TB wanted to rush him back into starting but that wasn't going to happen. He was absolutely dominating for 3 innings but after that the wheels fell off.

He'd fit perfectly, we wouldn't rush him, let him gradually get back his stamina (before he hurt his shoulder he regularly pitched 200+ innings/yr.). Again I'll state that with Wes Johnson, Archer can perfect his already awesome FB and slider. And with Johann Santana he can perfect his circle change-up. I'd sign him to at least a 1yr. contract with incentives and 2 one year team options because I'd like to have some control over him after he turns it around but also protect ourselves if some thing drastic happens.

If Hybrid three-innings guys are to become a staple in baseball (and I've been wanting the Twins to try a one-time-through-the-order type of mix and match inexpensive pitchers), I think you still need two quality Ace type for playoffs.  Perhaps you can get by with just one then trade for one at the All-Star Break?

Worth a shot at this point.  Why not?

It would be a hard sell, though, to get a superstar SS onboard when he learns the plan.

I can see it now. Joe Ryan pitches 3 perfect innings and is pulled. Tyler Duffey comes in to pitch the 4th and gives up 6 runs. Experiment over!

21 hours ago, Nick Nelson said:

They have developed pitching. There are few if any teams in baseball with more quality arms awaiting at the top level of their system. In evaluating them on this front, we can't underestimate the disruptive impact of 2020's canceled MiLB season on health, routines, timelines, etc. It takes 4-5 years to develop pitching from scratch (which is largely what they had to do) and that was Year 4.

Part of the appeal in this plan is that it becomes easier to bring those prospects along in a carefully managed way that also portends more immediate success (because the guys can lean more on their best pitches, not face lineups multiple times, etc.). 

Also, what we're talking about here is taking fringy arms (Griffin Jax, Lewis Thorpe, or free agents like Garrett Richards) and making them more effective by altering their roles and usage. Isn't that the definition of developing pitching?

I'd say that's the definition of throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks.

I mean yeah you can say we have a lot of prospects at the top of the organization, but nothing has planned out, I mean Bailey Ober looks like he could be ok, but I mean really he is already 26 years old.  He's barely on the radar and he's almost past his prime.  I mean it seems like the Twins idea of developing pitching is similar to composting.  Just keep them all down on the farm and stir them up once in awhile to see what stinks. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm praying for the day another Jose Berrios shows up, I'm hoping for another Frank Viola, I'd take another Brad Radke or two.  But the cynical side of me just keeps telling me to look around, what has come out of the system as far as starting pitching?? has anything really changed??  Now you're trying to tell me that picking up Garrett Richards off of the scrap heap and praying that he can throw 3 innings is developing pitching?  Again, I'm just looking around and seeing what they keep doing.  I'm in hope and pray mode, but again I usually hope and pray with my eyes closed.

1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

So you're telling me that taking pitchers and implementing changes to make them more effective does not qualify as "developing pitching." I'd love to hear your definition! Yes, it's about bringing young players up through your system but development is an ongoing focus throughout a player's career. When the Twins brought in Matt Wisler and turned him into a high-quality RP, that was a development success. When Cleveland traded for a no-name prospect named Kluber and made him a Cy Young winner, that was a development success. Tampa Bay has enjoyed a number of development successes with older & more established pitchers, and it's a big part of why they are successful.

This front office was not brought in to sign $150M starters in free agency. They were brought in to think creatively, find opportunities, and get more out of players. That's the kind of thinking this article is framed around.

They had basically one proven starter on their MLB roster going in to the 2019-2020 offseason. Worked out fine. (shrug)

The reason they have zero starters going into this one is because they traded Jose Berrios for prospects at the deadline, making a short-term sacrifice for a perceived long-term gain. Agree or disagree with the move, I'm not sure how you could describe it as anything other than "forward thinking"?

Trading Berrios was absolutely the right thing to do, because he telegraphed that he fully intended to go to FA. BUT, that had been obvious to anyone paying attention for quite awhile. As such, there should have been planning to have even more experienced MLB pitching under multi-year contracts going into the off season.

In FA negotiations and trading discussions, we are going to look desperate, because we are. People who are desperate have much less leverage and generally are taken advantage of during negotiations.

Finding 9 pitchers to fill a 3 x3 x 3 model is much harder than it looks. It is hard enough to be successful signing or trading for previously successful starting pitchers.

Now, you are essentially having to bet on the fact that you can correctly identify 9! pitchers from the poo poo platter that have only lacked success because they did not have the depth of talent to pitch more than 3 innings. Even if you are great at it, you are probably only correct  on 5-6/9 chances.

Averaging one pitcher blowing out per game will lead to many losses and blow out the strategy quickly.

No preexisting MLB starting pitching makes for a HUGE off season lift (with essentially no room for error). I highly doubt any FO would privately admit that this is a desirable strategy.

I stand by the opinion that the Twins are at risk for disaster next season due to lack of long term planning for the rotation.

I think they'd be better off going all in on a rebuild as far as the pitching staff goes.  I mean use Ryan and Ober.  Bring up SWR or Balazovic and pitch them.  The more I see the Twins baby these guys for years and years next thing you know is that they can't do it.  I mean bring them up when they are young 22 - 23 and if they get blown up then send them down and give them another year or so to figure it out.  But the twins keep them down there till they are 25 or 26 and if they don't do well they are phased out because they are now too old.  Don't get me wrong, it was a different thing when they were coming off of a division championship and you had Berrios, Pineda, Odrorrzzi, Maeda and a staff of veterans anchoring your rotation.  But now it's got to be a different strategy, and throwing everyone for 3 innings is an experiment that in the long run won't develop anyone for the future.  You'd be doing that for the here and now and then punt and start over the next season.  Bringing up the young guys to see if they can pitch will show development for the future.  If it works in the here and now great!!!  If it doesn't then maybe you find 2 or 3 guys in your system that can handle it.  If you don't then you know that you have to go to the next wave of youngsters until you find some guys who can pitch.  Try some of the young guys and see what they can do.  Then at least those guys will have a baseline and know what they have to work on to be able to have a successful career.