Short Starts Are Not a Minnesota Twins Thing

Pohlad's "strategy" is to keep the team payroll at the league average. They want to be good enough to  "compete" (put butts in the seats), but not be good enough to win championships.

I'm sure this list is inconclusive: Trevor Megill, Juan Minaya, Devon Smeltzer, Danny Coulombe,  Joe Smith, Chi Chi Gonzales, Jhon Romero, Ralph Garza Jr, Chris Archer, Yennier Cano, Jharel Cotton, Jovani Moran, Cole Sands, Tyler Thornberg, Austin Davis, Brad Peacock, Emilio Pagán.   

One thing I will never understand is why a pitcher needs 4 full days of rest after pitching 75 pitches.

I agree that Falvey has failed to fill the pitching pipeline. One obvious cause is this team does not sign and develop international free agent pitchers. 30% of players are from outside the US and the only decent pitcher the Twins have signed and developed in the last decade is Brusdar Graterol.

11 minutes ago, Murph said:

Pohlad's "strategy" is to keep the team payroll at the league average. They want to be good enough to  "compete" (put butts in the seats), but not be good enough to win championships.

I'm sure this list is inconclusive: Trevor Megill, Juan Minaya, Devon Smeltzer, Danny Coulombe,  Joe Smith, Chi Chi Gonzales, Jhon Romero, Ralph Garza Jr, Chris Archer, Yennier Cano, Jharel Cotton, Jovani Moran, Cole Sands, Tyler Thornberg, Austin Davis, Brad Peacock, Emilio Pagán.   

 

They generate less than league average revenue.  What do you expect them to spend?  It just astounds me that so many people can't figure out the amount that can be spent is a product of the amount coming in.    

10 hours ago, Yawn Gardenhose said:

The title of the article is blatantly wrong. I realize what you're implying - that short starts are a league-wide trend - but the plain fact is, short starts are very much a Minnesota Twins thing. 

 

I believe Ted's title Short Starts Are Not a Minnesota Twins Thing  is directed at the fans, not the organization. And the difficulty for them to change their mindset of a SP not completing a game. This mindset of disgruntle fans has forced management to over extend our SPs' beyond their profiles, resulting in ineffectiveness and injuries, in hopes of trying to appease them. Even if they squeeze another quality inning out of our SP, they aren't able to bounce back for their next outing.

This mindset of having 5 SPs able to pitch a complete game or even anything over 5 innings on a regular basis is a fantasy & detrimental to the team. If you can develop one it'll take a long time and is rare or if you have the $ like NYY or LAD you have no hope to obtain one.

We started this last off season with 2 rookies. Eventhough many had delusions of them being an over night aces, but in reality that was a impossibility. So where are we going to get our 5 workhorses? There was no way. So if that was a impossibility how are we going  to bridge that gap from SP to closer? FO threw out piggy-backing, a form of long relief. It was a great idea but for some reason it was not implemented. Over reliance on short RPs & over extending SP was instead installed which has hampered our success,

If we are going to compete we have to wake up from our fantasies & think outside the box and work with the best pieces we have, the best way we can. Long relief is our best option of getting those quality innings.

9 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

I believe Ted's title Short Starts Are Not a Minnesota Twins Thing  is directed at the fans, not the organization. And the difficulty for them to change their mindset of a SP not completing a game. This mindset of disgruntle fans has forced management to over extend our SPs' beyond their profiles, resulting in ineffectiveness and injuries, in hopes of trying to appease them. Even if they squeeze another quality inning out of our SP, they aren't able to bounce back for their next outing.

This mindset of having 5 SPs able to pitch a complete game or even anything over 5 innings on a regular basis is a fantasy & detrimental to the team. If you can develop one it'll take a long time and is rare or if you have the $ like NYY or LAD you have no hope to obtain one.

We started this last off season with 2 rookies. Eventhough many had delusions of them being an over night aces, but in reality that was a impossibility. So where are we going to get our 5 workhorses? There was no way. So if that was a impossibility how are we going  to bridge that gap from SP to closer? FO threw out piggy-backing, a form of long relief. It was a great idea but for some reason it was not implemented. Over reliance on short RPs & over extending SP was instead installed which has hampered our success,

If we are going to compete we have to wake up from our fantasies & think outside the box and work with the best pieces we have, the best way we can. Long relief is our best option of getting those quality innings.

Is this first two paragraphs satire? We are now blaming the fans for FO's roster construction and minor league teachings?

I would ask the question, does anybody on this site expect 5 pitchers to be able to complete games? I assume that answer is no. (or at least should be )Do the fans expect 5 starters to even go more than 5 innings? Again I would assume that answer is no. Do the Fans expect a couple of starters to be able to finish a couple of games a year or even pitch into the 8th a few times a year? I think that answer is yes.

Do fans assume a pitcher that has given up 1 hit and no runs in 5 innings to come out for the 6th? I think that is a reasonable expectation. Do fans assume some games a guy is going to have a high pitch count after 5 innings and be pulled, again that is going to happen to all pitchers so it is going to happen. Do fans generally hate "starters" (yes) do we understand it is going to happen for whatever reason, I believe so.

Do fans hate being lied to? Yes

And every time somebody claims that what the Twins are doing is exactly what everybody else is doing is lying. And if the response is well the Twins just don't have good pitchers, Then lets stop talking about batters faced, pitch count, innings and blast this FO for putting the team in this situation, because it is getting sickening reading/listening to people run cover for this FO.

6 minutes ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

I agree with this post directionally, but it’s missing some detail.

it appears the Twins are ahead of the trend to manage times through the order, and are doing so to @Squirrel’s point in an effort to manage a high injury risk starting rotation’s impact on the game, as well as I think it’s an effort to mitigate inherited runners on the bullpen.

they’ve taken the trend and ran with it. It’s not inherently a bad strategy if the FO had invested in the bullpen or piggy-backed or openered or whatever to compensate for the high injury risk starting rotation.

Agreed, the Twins are blazing some trails, but it’s not unfounded or entirely without precedent, the strategy appears to have merit, but execution on talent acquisition has missed the mark badly.

 

The only way this strategy works is to have a lot of cheap talented pitchers, so far the Twins only have the cheap part.  Because no matter how much baseball has changed at the end of the year you still have to pitch around 1458 innings. Currently it looks like the Twins have pitched a hair under 1200 and Ryan, Gray, Bundy and Archer have pitched just 37% of those innings.

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

They generate less than league average revenue.  What do you expect them to spend?  It just astounds me that so many people can't figure out the amount that can be spent is a product of the amount coming in.    

It astounds me that you keep falling for the Pohlads BS. A playoff baseball team would make them more money than the garbage they've been throwing out there for the last 15 years.

Watch games with eyes. See pitcher has something good going that day, let them go. See pitcher is struggling that day, pull them early. 

I do not understand when this started to not become a thing. 

1 hour ago, Murph said:

Pohlad's "strategy" is to keep the team payroll at the league average. They want to be good enough to  "compete" (put butts in the seats), but not be good enough to win championships.

I'm sure this list is inconclusive: Trevor Megill, Juan Minaya, Devon Smeltzer, Danny Coulombe,  Joe Smith, Chi Chi Gonzales, Jhon Romero, Ralph Garza Jr, Chris Archer, Yennier Cano, Jharel Cotton, Jovani Moran, Cole Sands, Tyler Thornberg, Austin Davis, Brad Peacock, Emilio Pagán.   

 

Please leave Devon Smeltzer, Jovani Moran, Cole Sands, Ralph Garza Jr and Brad Peacock out.

If the Twins would just make one move, I'd be a little happier: Move Archer to the bullpen as long relief. Then DFA Pagan. Well, that's two moves. Aim high!

9 hours ago, bean5302 said:

The Twins are not part of a baseball trend. The Twins are unique. Other teams allow starters to keep pitching when they're effective. The Twins do not. The Twins pull pitchers who are pitching well because of the false pretense of a major drop off in performance related to TTO and the organization seems to be refusing to alter it's seemingly failed strategy.

To me, this is precisely what I have seen too many times this year. If it is truly an organizational strategy, then the organization needs to be replaced. Even large corporations that spend big money on business analytics make flawed decisions. Some of them even fail miserably.

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

They generate less than league average revenue.  What do you expect them to spend?  It just astounds me that so many people can't figure out the amount that can be spent is a product of the amount coming in.    

Owning baseball teams is a rich person's hobby, not a business.  But, I have a question for you Major League Ready, if Pohlad bought the Twins for let's say 25 million, and it is now worth approximately 1.4 billion, has his net worth increased?  It astounds me that people continue to ignore capital appreciation when looking at team payrolls.  Yearly income is not the reason rich people buy sports franchises, and if they run them to maximize yearly profits they are insulting the fans given how much they make on yearly appreciation.

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

 

I would ask the question, does anybody on this site expect 5 pitchers to be able to complete games? I assume that answer is no. (or at least should be )Do the fans expect 5 starters to even go more than 5 innings? Again I would assume that answer is no. Do the Fans expect a couple of starters to be able to finish a couple of games a year or even pitch into the 8th a few times a year? I think that answer is yes.

Do fans generally hate "starters" (yes) do we understand it is going to happen for whatever reason, I believe so.

 

 

In one paragraph you say that nobody expect 5 SPs to be able to complete games or go more than 5 innings. You have given into the fact SPs can't more than 5 innings on a regular basis but your standard for any SP is to complete their game or atleast go more than 5,  if a SP doesn't go more than 5 innings, you hate.

For a small market we can't come close to your standard for SPs. IMO our SPs have pitched very well if managed inside their profile. The problem comes when we expect them to pitch beyond who they are. And hate them if they can't.

28 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

the Yankees apparently don’t have players who fear failure like the twins do (per Levine)

I don't understand why the Twins chose their brain trust from Cleveland (Falvey), Texas (Levine), Tampa (Baldelli) and San Diego (Tingler). Not a lot of pennants from those teams. Can't they steal someone from St. Louis instead? I looked up the bio of Michael Girsch and he has twin daughters. Twins! It's meant to be.

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

They generate less than league average revenue.  What do you expect them to spend?  It just astounds me that so many people can't figure out the amount that can be spent is a product of the amount coming in.    

So, the amount you spend depends on the amount you take in.  I would never argue with that.  But, using that argument, doesn't the product have to improve if you want the amount coming in to improve?  And you have to improve the product before you can improve the amount coming in, not waiting for more to come in before you improve the product.  We are 20th in MLB in attendance because we are in that range as a product people will pay to see.  It might be very much an example of the chicken or the egg question, but if we don't improve the product, we won't see an improvement in the amount coming in.  

Bottom line is, they can spend as much or as little as they want.  Even if they lose money as an organization each and every year, the value of the organization continues to grow much faster than the amount of money they lose, so, again, they can spend as much or as little as they want.  You were spot on when you said the product depends on the amount coming in, so we need to improve the product.  It may cost in the short term, but it comes our in the end.  

13 hours ago, Yawn Gardenhose said:

 

13 hours ago, Yawn Gardenhose said:

Let's use Archer for example. This season he's faced 15 batters three times in a game. Read that closely - that's not "15 starts he's gone through the order three times." In total in 2022, he's had *15 plate appearances* against a batter who's facing him for the third time. This is such a comically small sample size that it's fundamentally insignificant from a data standpoint. Furthermore, each of these 15 plate appearances were against the #1 or #2 hitters in an opponents' lineup - typically where teams' best players hit. 

THANK YOU!!!!  I have been saying this in every argument about not letting someone go through the order for the 3rd time.  When you see those horrible OPS numbers presented for the 3rd time through the order the very first question anyone should ask is, "well, how many ABs do those numbers come from?"  And if you've only allowed Archer, for example, 15 ABs to show what he's got how can you possibly take that OPS number seriously?  That's like telling me that Arraez hypothetically needs to be pinch hit for in the 9th inning because he's only batting .100.  But then you tell me that this average is for only one hit in ten ABs for the whole season.  

51 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

In one paragraph you say that nobody expect 5 SPs to be able to complete games or go more than 5 innings. You have given into the fact SPs can't more than 5 innings on a regular basis but your standard for any SP is to complete their game or atleast go more than 5,  if a SP doesn't go more than 5 innings, you hate.

For a small market we can't come close to your standard for SPs. IMO our SPs have pitched very well if managed inside their profile. The problem comes when we expect them to pitch beyond who they are. And hate them if they can't.

You are right.  If we continue to develop from within, and bring in from without, starters who fit the profile you describe, then...........I don't know.............maybe it is the profile that needs changing, not the use of the pitchers who fit that profile?  

1 hour ago, Doctor Gast said:

In one paragraph you say that nobody expect 5 SPs to be able to complete games or go more than 5 innings. You have given into the fact SPs can't more than 5 innings on a regular basis but your standard for any SP is to complete their game or atleast go more than 5,  if a SP doesn't go more than 5 innings, you hate.

For a small market we can't come close to your standard for SPs. IMO our SPs have pitched very well if managed inside their profile. The problem comes when we expect them to pitch beyond who they are. And hate them if they can't.

Well I wrote that bad or you misinterpreted what I wrote, nobody expects this team or any team to have all 5 starters go the distance or even  6,7,8 innings every game, but I do expect a FO to be able to have one at least maybe two that on good days can get deep into games, then a guy or two that can get you into the 7th, and your 4 and 5 starters hopefully get 5 decent innings and maybe more on good days. But if you throwing out a starter that basically has little chance to even get you 5 (or you are going to pull after 5 no matter how well they are pitching), then maybe try something different with them.

NO where ever I have said the standard for any SP is to complete a game, I have never even said the standard for a pitcher is to pitch 7 innings every game. Do I expect somebody your traded a first round pick for to have more than 1/3 games be a minimum of 6 innings, yup I do.

As for your last paragraph you are just making stuff up, why I have no idea.

Edit - I hate no pitchers not even Pagan or anybody that hasn't been good, I wish them all well even if I don't want them pitching in the majors for my favorite team.

Okay, let's cut to the chase here.  I know I am going to get my share of flak here, but I can live with it.    

If your plan A is to average 5 innings a start, then plan A is also to have the BP pitch 4 innings a game.  Over a 162 game season that works out if you have 8 BP guys that are up to the task, that bring it game in and game out.  But........what if you only have 7?  Or.........what if it is only 6?  Or........well, I won't kick a dead horse, but what if you just don't have a stacked BP that can handle 40 plus percent of your innings pitched?  Us old farts would say you let your starters go until they prove they are out of gas, because the guy relieving them just might not be any better, first time through or not.  Apparently, the analytics say anyone on a MLB roster is better than said starter if it is the 3rd time through.  Now, I know I am a little different, but on planet Mark, that DOES'NT MAKE SENSE!  But, if all of baseball is doing it, it must be right..........yeah, right.  

17 minutes ago, Mark G said:

Okay, let's cut to the chase here.  I know I am going to get my share of flak here, but I can live with it.    

If your plan A is to average 5 innings a start, then plan A is also to have the BP pitch 4 innings a game.  Over a 162 game season that works out if you have 8 BP guys that are up to the task, that bring it game in and game out.  But........what if you only have 7?  Or.........what if it is only 6?  Or........well, I won't kick a dead horse, but what if you just don't have a stacked BP that can handle 40 plus percent of your innings pitched?  Us old farts would say you let your starters go until they prove they are out of gas, because the guy relieving them just might not be any better, first time through or not.  Apparently, the analytics say anyone on a MLB roster is better than said starter if it is the 3rd time through.  Now, I know I am a little different, but on planet Mark, that DOES'NT MAKE SENSE!  But, if all of baseball is doing it, it must be right..........yeah, right.  

You know what amazes me is how the Twins don't have one Spencer Strider type, a 23 year old pitcher that has started at lest  the 6th inning in 11 of his 15 starts and was drafted in the 4th round of 2020. Or how 12 pitchers just yesterday went a minimum of 6 innings, don't these teams know about pitch count, batters faced and TTO?

The last time a Twins pitcher went 6 innings was August 26th. and since then the Twins starters have given up 3,3,4,2,5(Mahle), 5,8,5,9,6, and 1 hit (Gray 5 innings). And the worst 4 were wins.

4 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

You know what amazes me is how the Twins don't have one Spencer Strider type, a 23 year old pitcher that has started at lest  the 6th inning in 11 of his 15 starts and was drafted in the 4th round of 2020. Or how 12 pitchers just yesterday went a minimum of 6 innings, don't these teams know about pitch count, batters faced and TTO?

The last time a Twins pitcher went 6 innings was August 26th. and since then the Twins starters have given up 3,3,4,2,5(Mahle), 5,8,5,9,6, and 1 hit (Gray 5 innings). And the worst 4 were wins.

Simon and Garfunkel should have used the name Bert Blyleven in the "Mrs. Robinson" song.    

In Sunday's Game Thread introduction, I offered a take on what has happened to the Twins this year. It's here: 

Read the second comment for updated stats through Sunday. 

In a nutshell:

• In prior years, the length of Twins starts was right at the MLB average.
• In April and May, we tried to use starters in a "normal" pattern, with numerous guys going into the sixth regularly, and even the seventh on occasion.
• Guys got hurt, so in a 13-game stretch from May 31-June 12, our starters were Smeltzer (3 times), Sands (3), Archer (2), Chi Chi Gonzalez (2), Bundy (2) and Ober (1). That's not a rotation you want to use the rest of the year, and some of them eventually got hurt anyway.
• Guys came back and have transitioned to shorter starts, largely avoiding the IL in the process. From June 13 through Sunday, our 69 games have had 14 starts from Ryan, 13 from Bundy, 15 from Gray, 12 from Archer and the remaining 16 from a shared mix of Smeltzer (6), Mahle (4), Winder (3) and Sanchez (3).

From that, I read that the front office's plan was to use their starters in a "normal" pattern, but they needed to pivot when injuries arose. Rather than pivoting to bringing up AAA and AA material, they pivoted to shortening the starts. It's generally worked in terms of keeping guys off the IL (and note that the primary IL exception is Mahle, who came over after averaging 5.5 innings per start for Cincinnati, a workload higher than any Twins starter year-to-date).

6 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

When it comes to the bullpen, well...laugh about it, shout about it, when it's time to chose, any way you look at it we lose.

I'd say that our lineup also needs Joe Dimaggio, but he's dead. 

I have been watching baseball for 7 decades. I can only count one, possibly two times a pitcher was pulled early from a game where he was throwing a no-hitter. And this year it has happened several times, (relatively speaking) sometimes as late as the 7th inning. What that means is that exceptional personal achievement is no longer rewarded in a sport where you play everyday for 6 months. BAseball has always been about stats, even though the old tried and true stats are being reduced to nothing. Watching a team parade out 5, 6, and 7 pitchers every game (it seems) diminishes the overall enjoyment of the game. (I know thats an subjective statement...so I'll leave it as it applies to me)

You still show me (and you can't anymore) a pitcher who wins 15-20 games, has an ERA of 2.00-2.50, strikes out more than he walks, and finishes what he starts several times...and I'll show you someone I would make an extra effort to watch every 5 days. And most those games would be well played and fun to watch.

One stat I have always thought was practically impossible to understand was the year when Bob Gibson finished with that 1.12 ERA..yet he suffered 8 losses! You just have to wonder how your team could lose that many when your pitcher basically gives up 1 run per game.