Thread: Mackey: Low Risk or Not, Twins are Taking a Philosophical Gamble

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Honestly, if you're going to be smug, at least attack ideas people actually have.

I guess I'm still waiting for you to stop banging your head against the wall and come up with one.

Your constant penchant for perjorative indicates you are in the idea-dearth zone.

I directly quoted from your post, using the very phrases that indicated you are highly dependent on "hope" and "wishful thinking" regarding the Twins near future.

Originally Posted by ashburyjohn

I assume you mean Pavano's first two full seasons with the Twins? Similar, in that he started 32/33 games and pitched 221/222 innings?

They weren't that similar. The first full season, 2010, he was among the top 20 pitchers in the league - not an all star but very effective, and the second best of his career. In that season, he gave up five or more earned runs six times, and the Twins were 2-4 in those games, as he "kept them in the game" to win 7-6 and 8-5 in those two games, while in the losses the scores were more like 11-2 except for one game they lost 11-10 where giving up 7 runs in 4 innings looks kind of decisive. That second season, 2011, he was far from good, and at best he might have been in the top 50 in the league - he gave up five or more runs ten times, and the Twins were 1-9 in those games, lots of 10-3 and 9-5 and 5-2 kinds of losses where he clearly didn't keep them in the game, with one 9-8 win they managed to eke out.

See, you want to say that the stats don't bear out what you "know", that the Twins had a shot to win when he stepped onto the mound. But there are concrete records you can check, to see whether a game-to-game claim is supported either. It's not just a bunch of complicated stats standing between you and your preferred reality.

You are completely missing the point, which is what most of you guys do, because you want to believe that the stats tell you everything you need to know about a player. I'm saying that Pavano is the type of pitcher, who players had confidence in to keep them in the game (whether he did it or not). More often than not he did do that. When he was on the mound, players knew they had a shot to win. Why? Because he's a tough, experienced pitcher who has that edge that he's not going to give up. You could see it in his face when he was out there on the mound. He hated losing and he wanted to succeed no matter what. Now, a guy like that gives your team confidence. You can't measure that with a stat. If you don't think that's valuable, contrast it with a guy like Liriano. You never know what he's going to do on the mound and when he gets in a jam, his confidence drains. Things compound and get ugly really fast. Over the course of time, players don't have a lot of confidence in a pitcher like that. It shows in their performance on the field. Why battle back, when Liriano will just give up another big inning? If you think this is bs, it's not. I played and coached the game for many years. There are many intangibles that aren't reflected in stats, which affect the outcome of a game and contribute to a player's value. My guess is that you never played the game and stats are all that you have to hold on to in understanding the game. If you had "hands on experience", you would understand there is so much more to baseball than stats. Also, you threw out all those wins and losses by Pavano, but you didn't say what the score was when he left the game. Was it close? Did the bullpen make a close game not so close? What about the games he kept them in that were 2-1, 3-2, 4-3, etc...?

Originally Posted by snepp

I'd take that season too. But considering that his career ERA/FIP is already 4.50 in the NL, with a ton of time in pitcher's parks, with only one season north of 180 innings (and just one other even approaching it), I have to agree on the longshot.

Oh yeah, and he has to do it twice.

I like your benchmarks. I'll admit I've stared long and hard at his fangraphs page looking for ways to argue that he can do this. However, even a comparison of his page vrs. Marquis isn't making me feel better. Best of luck Kevin, God willing, it's 2009, Hicks is all over the park (after the first two-to-three weeks of the season), Florimon, Dozier, and Carroll have more range than we thought, and Trevor's a vaccum...sign..best of luck to you sir.

Originally Posted by jokin

I guess I'm still waiting for you to stop banging your head against the wall and come up with one.

Your constant penchant for perjorative indicates you are in the idea-dearth zone.

Pejorative? By calling you smug? Look, it's not at all classy to say "See there, I linked the dots for you, no charge." It's snotty and smug. I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your tone. You use plenty of pejoratives throughout your post(s), and consistently condescend. Idea-dearth? Come on, man; you have no place to complain about the use of pejoratives.

Look, if you don't think I have any ideas, don't read my posts.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

Pavano's stats in his first two years with the Twins were actually pretty good, far better than anything we've seen from Correia. Not a strong comp.

Also, those years happened in, whattayacallit, the American League.

Originally Posted by ThePuck

I would hope that anyone who has a serious issue with signing Correia would be delighted to be wrong...cause that would mean the team was better off.

It also means management won't learn their lesson regarding that type of player and will feel vindicated that they were right and continue to pursue those types of players.

Originally Posted by Brandon

It also means management won't learn their lesson regarding that type of player and will feel vindicated that they were right and continue to pursue those types of players.

well, there's that....reminds me of a manager who tries a strategy over and over and, when it continuously fails, blames the players for not executing. When it finally works, once, it's like 'SEE, I told you!' :-)

Originally Posted by gmarais66

You are completely missing the point, which is what most of you guys do, because you want to believe that the stats tell you everything you need to know about a player. I'm saying that Pavano is the type of pitcher, who players had confidence in to keep them in the game (whether he did it or not). More often than not he did do that. When he was on the mound, players knew they had a shot to win. Why? Because he's a tough, experienced pitcher who has that edge that he's not going to give up. You could see it in his face when he was out there on the mound. He hated losing and he wanted to succeed no matter what. Now, a guy like that gives your team confidence. You can't measure that with a stat. If you don't think that's valuable, contrast it with a guy like Liriano. You never know what he's going to do on the mound and when he gets in a jam, his confidence drains. Things compound and get ugly really fast. Over the course of time, players don't have a lot of confidence in a pitcher like that. It shows in their performance on the field. Why battle back, when Liriano will just give up another big inning? If you think this is bs, it's not. I played and coached the game for many years. There are many intangibles that aren't reflected in stats, which affect the outcome of a game and contribute to a player's value. My guess is that you never played the game and stats are all that you have to hold on to in understanding the game. If you had "hands on experience", you would understand there is so much more to baseball than stats. Also, you threw out all those wins and losses by Pavano, but you didn't say what the score was when he left the game. Was it close? Did the bullpen make a close game not so close? What about the games he kept them in that were 2-1, 3-2, 4-3, etc...?

You make some solid points about pitchers' mentality, but I'm not seeing the connection to Correia.

TR says Correia is better than his numbers suggest, implying that KC's got those intangibles you speak of. But if he does have that competitive drive and bulldog mentality that Pavano was praised for, why hasn't it helped him pitch 200 innings once?

Originally Posted by Brandon

It also means management won't learn their lesson regarding that type of player and will feel vindicated that they were right and continue to pursue those types of players.

If it turns out they were right, they were right, and should feel vindicated. It seems that no matter how good or bad Correia ends up being he simply proves that the management was offbase in their assessment. That seems pretty ideological to me.

Originally Posted by jokin

I directly quoted from your post, using the very phrases that indicated you are highly dependent on "hope" and "wishful thinking" regarding the Twins near future.

You added this. To clarify, there's no hard evidence that the Twins would use their pitching philosophy for acquiring young arms to acquire veteran arms. I simply hope that they will, a reasonable hope, if such players make a major league impact eventually. I never said my thinking about all things Twins was "highly dependent" on hope. That's an insulting extrapolation on your part of what I've said, and it's obvious to anyone actually reading the thread. (Your Sheilds rant certainly seemed misplaced to me.)

Look, I don't like Correia signing, but I don't believe that people who made the decision are The Stupid, so I try to understand what the FO is thinking, and I try to put that in context in both terms of the now and of the future, and I try to arrive at a nuanced assessment of any deal they make. That doesn't mean I'm a pollyannish fool. It's just hard for me to get worked up about Correia signing in a winter when we've acquired two young power arms (May and Meyers), another young mid-rotation guy (Worley), and two risk signings (Pelfry, Harden).

Originally Posted by jokin

I guess I'm still waiting for you to stop banging your head against the wall and come up with one.

Your constant penchant for perjorative indicates you are in the idea-dearth zone.

I directly quoted from your post, using the very phrases that indicated you are highly dependent on "hope" and "wishful thinking" regarding the Twins near future.

Originally Posted by Boom Boom

You make some solid points about pitchers' mentality, but I'm not seeing the connection to Correia.

TR says Correia is better than his numbers suggest, implying that KC's got those intangibles you speak of. But if he does have that competitive drive and bulldog mentality that Pavano was praised for, why hasn't it helped him pitch 200 innings once?

I'm saying that from what I've seen, Correia is a similar type of pitcher to Pavano. I'm not sure. Maybe it has something to do with the fact he's a .116 career hitter and he's frequently pulled for a pinch hitter.

Originally Posted by gmarais66

You are completely missing the point, which is what most of you guys do, because you want to believe that the stats tell you everything you need to know about a player. I'm saying that Pavano is the type of pitcher, who players had confidence in to keep them in the game (whether he did it or not). More often than not he did do that. When he was on the mound, players knew they had a shot to win. Why? Because he's a tough, experienced pitcher who has that edge that he's not going to give up. You could see it in his face when he was out there on the mound. He hated losing and he wanted to succeed no matter what. Now, a guy like that gives your team confidence. You can't measure that with a stat. If you don't think that's valuable, contrast it with a guy like Liriano. You never know what he's going to do on the mound and when he gets in a jam, his confidence drains. Things compound and get ugly really fast. Over the course of time, players don't have a lot of confidence in a pitcher like that. It shows in their performance on the field. Why battle back, when Liriano will just give up another big inning? If you think this is bs, it's not. I played and coached the game for many years. There are many intangibles that aren't reflected in stats, which affect the outcome of a game and contribute to a player's value. My guess is that you never played the game and stats are all that you have to hold on to in understanding the game. If you had "hands on experience", you would understand there is so much more to baseball than stats. Also, you threw out all those wins and losses by Pavano, but you didn't say what the score was when he left the game. Was it close? Did the bullpen make a close game not so close? What about the games he kept them in that were 2-1, 3-2, 4-3, etc...?

Hmmm so you believe your the only one who has ever played or coached?

ok me bad

Originally Posted by lightfoot789

12 Wins - Obviously 12 of those 28 starts went 5+ innings andhe earned those 12 Wins!!!

Again - 12 is double the wins of all Twins pitchers not named Diamond

Did Jeff Gray earn his 6 wins with the Twins?

Originally Posted by zenser

Did Jeff Gray earn his 6 wins with the Twins?

Great pitchers just find a way to win.

Originally Posted by lightfoot789

12 Wins - Obviously 12 of those 28 starts went 5+ innings andhe earned those 12 Wins!!!

Again - 12 is double the wins of all Twins pitchers not named Diamond

Not counting Diamond , no other twins pitcher started 20 games last year.
Scott started 27 games, hard to have wins with no starts unless you a vulture

Originally Posted by FrodaddyG

Great pitchers just find a way to win.

He's no Tony Fiore.

Originally Posted by snepp

He's no Tony Fiore.

Despite going 0-8 in 2011, Kevin Slowey's still got a great win/loss ratio.

12 Wins - Winning Record (12-11) Bottom Line - Technically he is a winner. If the Twins were one game over .500 - You would say the same - that they were winners?

"Technically" the Pirates were a winner in the games that Correia recorded a decision.