Murphy: Inteview with Terry Ryan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old nurse

Not nit picking. but isn't hitting for more power hitting better?

---

OK, that's another way of stating my objection to how Terry Ryan phrased it: leave out the words in his sentence that came after "better". But I don't think that is what he meant, he really meant it was the RISP situations that defines the problem, and not power hitting in all situations. Hitting for more power means more situations where RISP means "man on second" instead of "man on first", all of which tends to get lumped in together in a way that obscures rather than clarifies. And hitting for more power can mean a homer which clears the bases, thus eliminating a RISP opportunity at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrylos98

If I wanted to trade a guy and keep his value high, I would say that he is "an integral part of this team", "would love to sign him long term", "he is a clubhouse leader" and all those kind of cliches that Ryan is saying about Morneau.

---

Yes, because opposing GMs are going to look back at this obscure local interview before the trade deadline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

With the amount of criticism you repeatedly dish out regarding Butera, assistant coaches, etc, I do wonder if you have a fundamental understanding of what things are actually important to making a baseball team win.

In the mind of Twins' personnel, Butera has done his job and met their expectations over the last few of years. To them he has earned the job and it is not a scholarship. You can disagree and lament his crappy bat all you want, but that's how it is. Probably best to come to terms with this reality.

---

I guess you must have a "fundamental understanding of what things are actually important to making a baseball team win.". So, could you please let us all know the last team that carried a no-hit average field 3rd C, which ended up wining a World Series?

The Ryan and Gardehire Twins' teams have not won, so I do not trust the current Twins' personnel to make decisions that translate to winning. They never did. And Ryan has been around and in change for almost 20 years (minus the years Smith was the titular head)

I know that this is the current (for the last 20 years) Twins' reality, but sue me for not liking it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

Then it just goes to show that a high IP total is simply a byproduct of being a good pitcher. It is the other factors, high K/9, keeping runners off base, keeping zero's on the board, that make a pitcher good. The high innings pitched simply is the result of those factors. It doesn't work the other way around. Having a high IP doesn't prevent baserunners or runs or produce a higher K%.

---

I get that and I don't disagree...

You are right... Having a high IP does not prevent base runners or runs or produce a higher K rate... It is a by product of good pitching just like you say... But... Low ERA or WHIP is also a by product of good pitching in a similar way.

Low ERA and WHIP... and IP are all stats that suggest that base runners and runs have been prevented. At least with IP you can add health and Manager confidence to the equation.

Im not on mission to defend the hypothesis of drjim... I'm just saying that I can see where he is coming from. IP is not a meaningless or throw away stat. It has tremendous value in my mind both directly and indirectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjim

Are runs and outs not the two most important stats in baseball? IP is the measure of how many outs you get..

---

Right, so why leave out the other half about how many runs they allowed. ERA, as just an immediate example, factors both innings and runs allowed. There are other pitching stats that do much the same.

Innings pitched isn't a very good catch-all stat because many times innings are pitched for reasons other than the talent or performance of the pitcher. Like, for example, an exhausted bullpen. Or injuries. Did Blackburn, Liriano, and Duensing pitch almost 100 innings last year because they were good pitchers?

Durability is good, but you want durability from players that are talented and effective. Durability can be trained, talent is much harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Now, that doesn't matter to someone like me. I think the Twins should carry two catchers because losing the DH doesn't matter for two innings in a game where your catcher gets injured. The Twins obviously feel differently about it.

---

Shucks, I thought this was the hotline to the Twins front office, where I could tell them what to do. If the Twins are going to do things their own way regardless of my preferences, I guess there's no point in discussing what-ifs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

With or without Doumit, the Twins would probably carry a third catcher because Mauer plays nearly every day and whether Doumit is a good defensive catcher is irrelevant.

---

With a good-glove weak-stick backup catcher, you would designate some utility infielder as your emergency backup catcher, and pick a better hitter for your last bench spot, who could have more of an impact on games than Drew Butera is ever allowed to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

This has everything to do with the Twins' ideas on how to build a roster around Joe Mauer, not Ryan Doumit.

---

I have not been one of the stick-bangers about Mauer's contract. But this observation causes me to re-consider how wise his contract is. A contract for 15+ million kind of says to me "plug him into the lineup and forget about him, that spot is set barring injury". Can't do that with a catcher, he is going to have days off. Kind of a dilemma when you draft a top-talent catcher in the first place - are you setting yourself up for years and years of this kind of roster juggling that you wouldn't face with an ordinary starter and a typical backup? In the abstract you say "hey, it's a problem anyone would like to have." But in the concrete, you have a third catcher taking up space on the bench and rarely appearing in games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Right, so why leave out the other half about how many runs they allowed. ERA, as just an immediate example, factors both innings and runs allowed. There are other pitching stats that do much the same.

Innings pitched isn't a very good catch-all stat because many times innings are pitched for reasons other than the talent or performance of the pitcher. Like, for example, an exhausted bullpen. Or injuries. Did Blackburn, Liriano, and Duensing pitch almost 100 innings last year because they were good pitchers?

Durability is good, but you want durability from players that are talented and effective. Durability can be trained, talent is much harder.

---

You are right in all of this. I would never suggest IP is a catch-all stat or the only stat, just the most important stat for a starting pitcher. ERA is probably second, but in my opinion tells less of a story than IP.

To bring it back to Ryan and the Twins, I think one reason they valued Correia is that they felt he had a good chance of going 200 innings, in that he had a higher probability to stay healthy and would be somewhat effective enough to grind out that many innings. I don't think they expect him to be dominant in those innings by any stretch. Given the state of the rotation, especially in light of the fiasco of last season, I can appreciate this thinking. I don't necessarily agree as I would have preferred the upside of McCarthy and/or Marcum, even if they were lesser bets to stay healthy.

If you had weak pitching depth, would you rather have 190 ip of 4.35 era or 130 ip of 3.35 era? I would probably take the first option, even though in many ways he is probably a lesser pitcher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjim

ERA is probably second, but in my opinion tells less of a story than IP.

---

What story though? If you're looking at the story of how good the pitcher is, I think IP tells very little without the rest of the stats.

Quote:

---

If you had weak pitching depth, would you rather have 190 ip of 4.35 era or 130 ip of 3.35 era? I would probably take the first option, even though in many ways he is probably a lesser pitcher.

---

I agree about why the Twins did this, that's part of my frustration. The issue is here that the Twins don't lack "depth" - they have equally cruddy options to Correia, we saw them marched out many times last year. What the Twins lack is talent...hence why it's so frustrating to see them continue to prize durability over effectivenes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjim

You are right in all of this. I would never suggest IP is a catch-all stat or the only stat, just the most important stat for a starting pitcher. ERA is probably second, but in my opinion tells less of a story than IP.

---

here are 4 mediocre pitchers on the leaderboards for IP for 2012

Justin Masterson: 206.1 IP, 4.93 ERA, 1.454 WHIP, 6.9 K/9, 1.81 K/BB
Jon Lester: 205.1 IP, 4.82 ERA, 1.383 WHIP, 7.3 K/9, 2.44 K/BB
Ian Kennedy: 208.1 IP, 4.02 ERA, 1.301 WHIP, 8.1 K/9, 3.40 K/BB
Clayton Richard: 218.2 IP, 3.99 ERA, 1.235 WHIP, 4.4 K/9, 2.55 K/BB

and this blast from the near past, closer to home

2011 Carl Pavano: 222 IP, 4.30 ERA, 1.360 WHIP, 4.1 K/9, 2.55 K/BB

Do those exceptional IPs made them good pitchers?
No.

Compare those numbers with those of the kid from Washington they "shut down" per club's choice.
Who is the better pitcher?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjim

You are right in all of this. I would never suggest IP is a catch-all stat or the only stat, just the most important stat for a starting pitcher. ERA is probably second, but in my opinion tells less of a story than IP.

To bring it back to Ryan and the Twins, I think one reason they valued Correia is that they felt he had a good chance of going 200 innings, in that he had a higher probability to stay healthy and would be somewhat effective enough to grind out that many innings. I don't think they expect him to be dominant in those innings by any stretch. Given the state of the rotation, especially in light of the fiasco of last season, I can appreciate this thinking. I don't necessarily agree as I would have preferred the upside of McCarthy and/or Marcum, even if they were lesser bets to stay healthy.

If you had weak pitching depth, would you rather have 190 ip of 4.35 era or 130 ip of 3.35 era? I would probably take the first option, even though in many ways he is probably a lesser pitcher.

---

Take your comment about Corriera and 200 innings, add Ryan's response of "health" to the question of what is demanded of the new rotation and toss in the poster's conclusion (which I'm inclined to think is the Twins' as well) that Butera "is meeting expectations" and what do we have? Nothing about excellence. Health? Really is that it? "Innings-eater"--does that term imply anything more than long-term mediocrity? There is no further need to delve into Butera's performance--excellence doesn't apply. The conclusion? Despite all of the nice words about competing in 2013 the reality of the makeup of the roster and what has been "demanded" is actually: "Just get through this year, don't get hurt, and don't do anything stupid".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

What story though? If you're looking at the story of how good the pitcher is, I think IP tells very little without the rest of the stats.



I agree about why the Twins did this, that's part of my frustration. The issue is here that the Twins don't lack "depth" - they have equally cruddy options to Correia, we saw them marched out many times last year. What the Twins lack is talent...hence why it's so frustrating to see them continue to prize durability over effectivenes.

---

Unfortunately, for a team that values durability over effectiveness, they went out and got players who aren't durable...I mean, besides their worst acquisition (Correia)...and didn't get Saunders who is both effective and durable...

The following post was written by another Twins fan but it matches my views and couldn't have written it better myself:

If TR is going to blame 2011 on injuries, why on Earth is he building a rotation around surgery rehabs? Four of the projected starters are coming off of some of kind of operation, how does that make any sense at all? Not to mention that Correia is just plain awful. I do like Diamond, but his numbers didn't hold up over the second half, which is generally how it works for a lot of pitchers, once the hitters have seen your stuff, it's easier to hit it. I like the Harden signing, but let's see him break camp before we speculate on his role. I understand where this organization is from a rebuilding standpoint, but you can't call what's listed here a competetive lineup, and that's far from an effective rotation. Payroll is below $80 million, and the FO gets extremely defensive when the question is brought up, which rightfully raises an eyebrow. Either the FO sincerely thinks this questionable roster will win more than 70 games, or they just don't want to own up the disaster this franchise has become. Either scenario makes me a little bit sad, and I personally think it's a little bit of both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjim

You are right in all of this. I would never suggest IP is a catch-all stat or the only stat, just the most important stat for a starting pitcher. ERA is probably second, but in my opinion tells less of a story than IP.

---

Pitcher A, 200 IP, 7.2 K/9, 3.50 ERA. Pitcher B, 200 IP, 5.6 K/9, 5.25 ERA

How is IP the most important stat here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinsnorth49

Pitcher A, 200 IP, 7.2 K/9, 3.50 ERA. Pitcher B, 200 IP, 5.6 K/9, 5.25 ERA

How is IP the most important stat here?

---

Equally useful pieces, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celebrity Weddings!

I think you're at risk of turning stats-speak orthodoxy into a shibboleth.

It was about as casual a mention of what Morneau offers a lineup as a GM could possibly muster. Moreover, it answers the specific question about Morneau's longterm future in Minnesota because it affirms his value to the team. RBI aren't a good way to measure an individual player's value, but whenever the next competitive Twins team takes the field they will assuredly need runs to be driven in. More simply put, he's talking about driving in runs as an ends and not a means. This isn't Tony Batista* here. Morneau was a 5 win player went he went down mid-season in 2010. I think Terry Ryan is aware of what makes Justin Morneau a good hitter.

*see what I did there. it's a defense of the conversation whilst acknowledging that the organization has run in some screwy ways before. if you want to beef with acquisitions, go right ahead. but "drive in runs" is a perfectly valid, if slightly lazy shorthand for describing how somebody can benefit a team offensively.

---

I think that's a fair point and probably is what he meant (and why I asked), it's just that references to that I hear from the front office are almost always behind what a lot of other teams are doing in terms of statistics. I'd like to find something that's heading that direction in their comments, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old nurse

Despite all of the advanced stats to describe individual performances, it is still a team game. Players have roles. Morneau's role is to drive in runs. If he does that, all the rest of the statistics you want to hear will happen.

---

I actually think it's the opposite. If he hits better in general, the driving in runs thing will happen more often. Or, if he were to come up more often with runners on base, that would help, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex

I probably read too much into things, but Ryan's focus on Morneau driving in runs does not do much to persuade me they've moved beyond antiquated stats.

---

Sounds better than I hope he has an above average obp+ with a solid iso power rating. The article wasn't for twins daily but a newspaper and since only gpas read newspapers with there morning viagra and oj, using saber stats would have been a bad idea.

I would say that Innings Pitched are not the most important statistic, but if anyone thinks they aren't very, very valuable to a baseball team, my opinion is that they're wrong.

And, I see Butera as the backup catcher, and most teams that win in the playoffs and in the World Series have a not-so-great backup catcher. I see Mauer as the #1 catcher, Doumit as the #2 catcher and Butera as the backup catcher on any day. Likewise, I see Doumit as the #1 DH and Mauer as a #2 DH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seth Stohs

I would say that Innings Pitched are not the most important statistic, but if anyone thinks they aren't very, very valuable to a baseball team, my opinion is that they're wrong. .

---

I don't think that's the argument. The problem with innings pitched is that they tell you nothing about how effective the pitcher was. You might be able to make some kind of reasonable guess about how effective they were, but it's still just a guess. Good evaluation of a pitcher needs to measure both their innings logged and their effectiveness.

I think, in part, this is the Twins problem. They're more worried about health than talent. Bad players who are healthy are still bad players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seth Stohs

I see Butera as the backup catcher, and most teams that win in the playoffs and in the World Series have a not-so-great backup catcher. I see Mauer as the #1 catcher, Doumit as the #2 catcher and Butera as the backup catcher on any day.

---

That would make Doumit the backup catcher and Butera the backup of the backup, not? Butera the #3...
(how many WS winners have a #3 or a backup backup C instead of a useful bat off the bench?)