Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 155

Thread: Official 'Twins Aren't Doing Stuff' Thread

  1. #81
    Senior Member All-Star Jim Crikket's Avatar
    Posts
    1,094
    Like
    15
    Liked 122 Times in 61 Posts
    Blog Entries
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    What bothers me most is that everyone keeps putting two "e"s in judgment.

    Are you all British?
    Dammit, I thought I was cured of that mistake years ago. Guess not.
    I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at Knuckleballsblog.com while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for MetroSportsReport.com.

    ~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~

  2. #82
    Senior Member All-Star Jim Crikket's Avatar
    Posts
    1,094
    Like
    15
    Liked 122 Times in 61 Posts
    Blog Entries
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by ashburyjohn View Post
    Did you want 4 years of Jason Vargas? I don't think I'd even want 3.
    I'm pretty resigned to the fact that, if TR does sign someone even moderately effective, he's going to have to overpay. I'm not disappointed at all that it wasn't Vargas he decided to overpay for.
    I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at Knuckleballsblog.com while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for MetroSportsReport.com.

    ~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~

  3. #83
    No need to hurry and over pay for the pitching that is available. Someone will be left at a good price and who ever that is will be a small upgrade. There is no one out there that is an ace. So just relax.

  4. #84
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer jay's Avatar
    Posts
    884
    Like
    13
    Liked 50 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Sounds like many people already have figured out the entire off-season plan as of November 21st. That's impressive. I know I haven't.

    Who predicted trading 2 CFs in the next 15 days at this point last year?

  5. #85
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer jay's Avatar
    Posts
    884
    Like
    13
    Liked 50 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Crikket View Post
    I'm pretty resigned to the fact that, if TR does sign someone even moderately effective, he's going to have to overpay. I'm not disappointed at all that it wasn't Vargas he decided to overpay for.
    Preach it, brother. I'd hope the fellow super fans here realize the likelihood that the only FA pitcher(s) we'll get is the one we significantly outbid 29 other GMs for and it's going to look like an overpay.

  6. #86
    Twins News Team All-Star PseudoSABR's Avatar
    Posts
    1,954
    Like
    257
    Liked 206 Times in 115 Posts
    What I want to know is who's going to take PJ Walter's starts now that he's signed with KC.

  7. #87
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,845
    Like
    179
    Liked 665 Times in 376 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Morris View Post
    If you had Correia being a touch below average with the league change(and not substantially worse), Pelfrey spending the first half of the year between 6-7 ERA, Worley with a 7 era and the obvious regression candidate of Diamond landing a sub-80 ERA+, congratulations. Many MLB offices likely have a place for you in baseball operations.

    I'm not saying that anyone felt the rotation was exciting. Many people predicted that something would go wrong-but very few had any (reasoned out, detailed) predictions that came close to the magnitude of regression and failure involved.

    The rotation was extremely warty. But 80% of the opening day rotation was players who had recent(Pelfrey is debatable due to injury and whether 2010 was "recent" for 28yo who missed the prior season with injury) success as Major League starters.

    Does a rotation made out of the pieces in the post you quoted come close to fitting that description?
    I don't feel the difference is overly significant, no. You're talking about a motley bunch of below average guys. I may not have predicted exactly those results, but I (and most others) accurately predicted little improvement.

    i have a hard time addressing the rest because you are mixing descriptors like competent, not exciting, warty, etc to the point that I don't know exactly what your stance is. If the point was that it was revisionist to suggest that pre 2013 there were major reasons to doubt an improvement....I call shenanigans.

  8. #88
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer jay's Avatar
    Posts
    884
    Like
    13
    Liked 50 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    If the point was that it was revisionist to suggest that pre 2013 there were major reasons to doubt an improvement....I call shenanigans.
    His point seems pretty clear. 2013 was bad, but no one that I know predicted it was going to be *that* bad with Correia, of all people, as the only guy to outperform expectations.

  9. #89
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    978
    Like
    3
    Liked 16 Times in 13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jay View Post
    His point seems pretty clear. 2013 was bad, but no one that I know predicted it was going to be *that* bad with Correia, of all people, as the only guy to outperform expectations.
    There were people who projected the rotation would be bad, and I remember several articles where it was predicted to be at the bottom of the MLB. The fact that who was predicted to be bad was off is somewhat moot.

  10. #90
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer jay's Avatar
    Posts
    884
    Like
    13
    Liked 50 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    The fact that who was predicted to be bad was off is somewhat moot.
    Can't say I agree with that part. Most everyone thought the rotation would be bad, but looking at the specific examples of individuals gives you a better picture of what happened.

  11. #91
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    978
    Like
    3
    Liked 16 Times in 13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jay View Post
    Can't say I agree with that part. Most everyone thought the rotation would be bad, but looking at the specific examples of individuals gives you a better picture of what happened.
    I don't disagree, going forward, but we're talking about predictions here and the predictions were mostly about the rotation as a whole, even if individual predictions were off, the overall issue is that the status of the Twins rotation and variables were such that there would be limited success regardless. Consider that the rotation was even healthy.
    Last edited by Alex; 11-21-2013 at 06:59 PM.

  12. #92
    Speediest Moderator All-Star snepp's Avatar
    Posts
    4,085
    Like
    1,816
    Liked 1,288 Times in 519 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoSABR View Post
    What I want to know is who's going to take PJ Walter's starts now that he's signed with KC.

    I'm sure they can scrounge something up out of their richly embarrassing...errr, embarrassingly rich depth of #6 starters.

    "Maybe you could go grab a bat and ball… and learn something. Maybe you will get it."
    - Strib commenter educating the elitists on the value of RBI's

  13. #93
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer Twins Twerp's Avatar
    Posts
    782
    Like
    38
    Liked 110 Times in 70 Posts
    Early Judgement: Moby Dick is about a guy named Ishmael.

  14. #94
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,845
    Like
    179
    Liked 665 Times in 376 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jay View Post
    His point seems pretty clear. 2013 was bad, but no one that I know predicted it was going to be *that* bad with Correia, of all people, as the only guy to outperform expectations.
    I remember many here questioning whether any improvement was made at all. This isn't a hindsight thing.

  15. #95
    Twins Moderator MVP Riverbrian's Avatar
    Posts
    8,767
    Like
    4,851
    Liked 2,297 Times in 1,289 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    I actually think the pitching was better. Not good enough but it was improved in my opinion.

    Stats will say differently I know but I believe we were "in" more games last year than we were in 2012. The offense failed to take advantage when the opportunity presented itself.

    We still... Really need pitching... More than anything... But it was better than the stats indicated...
    A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

  16. #96
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,243
    Like
    107
    Liked 104 Times in 76 Posts
    Early judgment? Yes. The Twins identified that they have significant concerns with respect to their rotation--but San Francisco has signed two starting pitchers so far. It appears SF got "in-front" of their "concerns" about their rotation.

    Detroit had "concerns" also. Apparently they prefer to return Cabrera to 1B and start a young guy who is better-suited for defense at 3B and reduce payroll (perhaps only temporarily) to permit the expenditure for an improved bullpen. They are "in-front" of their concerns. Texas also had concerns--apparently they believe they need more offense, and hope to get much of the improvement from Fielder--and maybe another player. Texas is "in-front" of their concerns. This should not be construed as a criticism of the Twins but rather, as the thread contends, "business as usual".

    The annual meetings, held in December, should be illuminating. If the Twins make an announcement on or before the Tuesday after these meetings (which I think would be December 10) then we can conclude that business has changed (for the Twins). But if there isn't an announcement of significance, well, I think we can conclude that things haven't changed. So, we wait--but just a bit--say until December 10, to see if "Things Haven't Changed in Twins Territory".

  17. #97
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    313
    Like
    4
    Liked 42 Times in 28 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    It was pretty bad not even in hindsight counting on Pelfrey coming back 9 months after TJ to be an factor in the rotation & Worley who had shown promise but had a year full of elbow problems. Everyone knew they were going to be iffy at best health wise.

  18. #98
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer Oldgoat_MN's Avatar
    Posts
    666
    Like
    199
    Liked 33 Times in 22 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by jay View Post
    So, which is it...
    a.) you guys think the only players ever added to the organization should be the very best FAs, or...
    b.) you're just rolling with easy targets that have nothing to do with whether or not they'll sign any decent FAs this year?

    My assumption is leaning towards b.) and I don't quite get it outside of endless snark for the sake of it.
    Pardon me Jay, but have you just started following this team?

    Looking at only 'The very best free agents' would show that the Twins have never been involved when TR was the GM. We ask only that he look to sign someone who could likely be above MLB average. Instead the Twins are linked to Nolasco & Arroyo. These are two fine pitchers, but neither can realistically be expected to be at all exceptional. Both, if they have good years, could measure all the way up to 'average MLB pitcher'.

    After 3 years of over 95 losses, some of us who have supported the Twins for decades are getting frustrated. Tough to be me, right?

    But that is why I hang out here. I love baseball. I love the Twins. I am usually an optimist, kind of to the extreme.

    At this point, however, I cannot imagine the Twins ever having a really good team (like, competitive even into the playoffs) for as long as TR is GM. He cannot get himself to pay what it takes to get better.

    I have bled Twins all my life. I have never had so little faith in what the future holds. Sano & Buxton, et al, cannot win games with no pitching. As near as I can tell, we will never have enough quality pitching until TR retires, at which point I expect to be dead.

    So call it an easy target if you like. See how if feels in 20 years.
    I'm on a whiskey diet. I've lost 3 days already.

  19. #99
    Member Rookie
    Posts
    36
    Like
    5
    Liked 15 Times in 7 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    I don't feel the difference is overly significant, no. You're talking about a motley bunch of below average guys. I may not have predicted exactly those results, but I (and most others) accurately predicted little improvement.

    i have a hard time addressing the rest because you are mixing descriptors like competent, not exciting, warty, etc to the point that I don't know exactly what your stance is. If the point was that it was revisionist to suggest that pre 2013 there were major reasons to doubt an improvement....I call shenanigans.
    I didn't think I was that unclear, I apologize if it came across as overly confusing. To begin by clarifying my stance: It was reasonable to assume the 2013 rotation would show substantial improvement over 2012-and that the collected pitchers had the ability to pitch the team to somewhere in the realm of league-average. With that being said, "average" would take a couple of lucky breaks-as the pitchers who were assembled were not great and frequently were not good (hence "warts", "not exciting", etc). I do, however, make a distinction between "not good" and "absolutely horrible"

    The thought of substantial improvement in the rotation was far from unreasonable and had support within analytics. The most readily available projection set (Steamer) had the Twins improving their rotation ERA by roughly 15% (even with some laughable HR/FB numbers and a few other quirks I found questionable). That improvement would have made them the 6th most improved rotation in the majors.

    I'm fully aware that there were people who expected this rotation to be poor. What I consider revisionism is the idea that people, through reasoned and sober analysis, expected the rotation to be as bad as it was. After 2 90+ loss seasons, the lack of any glamorous/sexy FA signings and the departure of favorites like Liriano, it'd be like me bragging about my meteorological skills for predicting that my recent planned outdoor afternoon date was forced inside by the rain. I'm a pessimist-of course I predicted it would rain. There was little reason to expect "Good" out of the Twins last year.

    Again, if you (or anyone else) can show your work on having the 3 acquisitions and Diamond performing as poorly as they did, I'd be interested in seeing it. As it stands though, I have a tough time believing that anybody got to this level of ineptitude by the rotation without a variety of baseless assumptions that wound up being accurate.

    And my general point stems from that distinction.... There is no reason to suspect that Duensing, Swarzak and to a lesser extent Johnson are anything besides BAD MLB starters. One is 29 without having received meaningful MLB time and the others are bad enough as starters that they couldn't grasp consistent playing time even while sharing a roster with the rollercoaster of revulsion the rotation has been over the last 2 years.

    If your grading scale doesn't allow for two different grades (perhaps "Below Average" and "Awful") and a distinction between a group consisting of [PJ Walters, Brian Duensing, Anthony Swarzak, Nick Blackburn, Kris Johnson and the performances of Jason Marquis and Carl Pavano] and a group consisting of the projected 2013 performances of [Correia, Worley, Pelfrey and Diamond], then I understand why we seem to be on opposite ends and talking past each other. If that's the case, then we're having a semantics discussion rather than a baseball one and I apologize for dragging it out

  20. #100
    Member Rookie
    Posts
    36
    Like
    5
    Liked 15 Times in 7 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by spycake View Post
    Short version: any rotation plan that includes the words "Hendricks-Deduno battle" is by definition one that is counting on AAA suspects.
    You could describe them as AAA suspects. Or you could describe them as a recent top 10 organizational prospect who showed glimpses of promise (the duel with King Felix in Seattle) but was generally inconsistent in his age 23 season and a journeyman AAA oddity who appeared in his first MLB season to have finally gained some control of his unique pitch and had used it to dominate the WBC in the winter/spring. I suppose it's a matter of how you'd like to frame it, but I think your method was somewhat oversimplified. I'm also curious if you'd use the description of floatsam/jetsam in your post to describe Gibson, who had a fairly similar debut season to Hendriks-despite being older.

    Quote Originally Posted by spycake View Post
    Long version: Correia, three guys coming off some form of elbow surgery, and ???. That was the rotation plan going into 2013.

    And before you tell me about expectations for the three surgery guys, note that by far the most experienced one had a career ERA+ of 92, in the NL, missed the previous season almost completely, and was aggressively pushing his rehab timeline. The next most experienced one was coming off a career high in IP (133), a 96 ERA+, a season shut down in August, and was just traded -- with a recent Top 100 prospect! -- for Ben Revere. The least-experienced one was the only one who was either above-average OR pitched a full season in 2012, and we all know his fluke credentials from that year (4.6 K/9).

    Then there's Correia, the so-called "innings eater" who had averaged 167 IP and an ERA+ of 83 since becoming a full-time starter.
    Again on framing: "coming off" and "some form" are both used here to cover all manner of sins- Pelfrey had Tommy John in April. Worley had bone chips removed in September and Diamond had bone chips removed in December.

    One of these is an existential threat to a pitching career and the reason Pelfrey was available on a 1 year deal. The other is a fairy common procedure (with a fairly minimal rehab timeline) that many movement-dependent pitchers (a category that Worley/Diamond fall into) report easing/removing the pain that makes it difficult to throw their arsenal properly-often leading to both short and long term improvement. But I absolutely grant you that the projected weakest member of the 4 was either Correia or Pelfrey, depending on your feelings on Tommy John.

    With regards to Diamond and Worley-I'd have found Diamond's strand rate as a better indicator of the flukiness of his season (Which should serve as a warning for Correia after this year), but we agree regression was likely. a 2pt rise in ERA and 1.5 in FIP seems harder to justify, though. Worley followed up his rookie season (where he finished 3rd in RoY voting) with a sophomore campaign in which he was a touch below league average while dealing with injuries that tend not to be chronic. I don't know that relatively minor elbow surgery warrants the levels of pessimism necessary to project his 2013 as being below average-even with K numbers inflated due to called 3rd strikes.

    Quote Originally Posted by spycake View Post
    Mind you, these guys individually were not necessarily bad acquisitions. But together they do not make a competent rotation, and TR has very clearly counted on some marginal starting pitchers for regular roles in his rotation planning the past two seasons.
    My recollection of 2012 involved Liriano (young and had a legitimate Ace-like season in 2010, contract year), the mediocre to terrible Marquis, Pavano (coming off a 2 WAR season, contract year), the rookie year of Hendriks who'd done nothing so far besides dominating the minors despite being at age-appropriate levels, and the awful Nick Blackburn... which is to say we agree-though I'd only have called Marquis and Blackburn marginal from that list.

    Quote Originally Posted by spycake View Post
    Don't sell yourself short -- Deduno had a 92 ERA+ in 2012, same as Pelfrey's career mark and better than Correia's (as a starter). The Twins had five recently successful Major League starters!

    That kind of distinction is almost meaningless. Did Philip Humber count as a "recently successful Major League starter" for the Astros? Erik Bedard? Did Kevin Slowey for the Marlins?

    TR built his rotation with low-upside guys with very shaky track records of health and effectiveness -- and he still had one clear opening for a AAA guy to begin the season!
    {Comment related to discussion with Different User redacted- Super embarrassed about crossing the two} The career ERA+s of Deduno after 15 starts and Pelfrey after nearly 150 are hardly comparable.

    Regarding recently successful, the distinction is almost meaningless if you widely broaden the definition of both terms
    Worley: ERA+ of 127 in his rookie year (2011), RoY Consideration, 96 ERA+ in sophmore campaign (2012)
    Diamond: ERA+ of 116 in 2012. Decent minor league track record prior but poor cup of coffee in 2011.
    Humber: 4 years of abysmal MLB and MiLB stats. Showed hints of maybe getting it in KC in 2010. 3 amazing months in 2011 followed by 3 awful months to end 2011(total ERA+: 116) and a 66 ERA+ in 2012.
    Slowey: 61 ERA+ in 2011. Injury and a horrible stint in the minors in 2012. One >100 ERA+ season in his career.

    I do apologize, I mistook Correia's SDP seasons for each other in my head. He has been solidly below average for a considerable time before the Twins picked him up.
    Last edited by Hugh Morris; 11-22-2013 at 08:30 AM. Reason: user confusion!

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.