Pitching Staff: Are the Twins Already Better Than They Were Last Year?
You play the games for a reason. But comparing 2010 projections to last season's WAR totals for position players tells us that the Twins are one marginal win better going into next summer. That's a good thing. Now, how about the pitchers?
| Name | '09 WAR | Projected '10 WAR |
| Scott Baker | 3.5 | 3.9 |
| Kevin Slowey | 1.4 | 3.6 |
| Carl Pavano | 3.7 | 3.0 |
| Nick Blackburn | 3.0 | 2.8 |
| Francisco Liriano | 1.1 | 1.7 |
| Glen Perkins | 1.1 | 0.7 |
| Brian Duensing | 1.1 | 0.8 |
| Anthony Swarzak | 0.0 | 0.2 |
| Starter Totals | 14.9 | 16.7 |
For those pitchers who split time between the rotation and the bullpen, I've assigned their WAR to whichever role they pitched the most innings. Most of these samples are small enough to not make much of a difference, at least for our purposes.
For each of these players it would be easy to alter their projections based on playing time alone, but I feel this is a pretty fair assessment of the whole. A full, solid season from Baker could very well make him a 4+ win pitcher, for example, but assigning him a value of 3.9 is accurate enough.
Pavano was worth 1.8 wins as a member of the Twins (last year's staff WAR totals include just those 1.8 wins, not the whole 3.7), with the remaining 1.9 coming from his time in Cleveland. After his first healthy and effective season in five years, some regression is to be expected. There's also a little bit of regression plugged in for Blackburn, although not enough to really notice a difference watching him pitch day-to-day. The biggest jump, and the guy who can have the biggest effect on the quality of the starting rotatin, is Slowey. A full and healthy season from him alone could make this rotation two wins better.
While Liriano also has some expectations for a bit of a rebound, I don't expect Perkins, Duensing or Swarzak to make significantly larger or smaller contributions than they did last season. If Liriano is beaten out by Duensing or Swarzak for the fifth slot in the rotation this could change.
Overall the rotation looks strong. It could get messy and start costing the Twins a few wins if two or more of the top five go down at the same time for an extended period.
The bullpen and totals after the jump.
| Name | '09 WAR | Projected '10 WAR |
| Joe Nathan | 1.9 | 2.0 |
| Matt Guerrier | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| Jon Rauch | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| Jose Mijares | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Jesse Crain | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Pat Neshek | -- | 0.7 |
| Jeff Manship | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| Bobby Keppel | 0.2 | -0.1 |
| Rob Delaney | -- | 0.0 |
| Anthony Slama | -- | 0.0 |
| Alex Burnett | -- | -0.1 |
| Bullpen Totals | 3.1 | 5.3 |
Like third base, the bullpen is an area from last season that could easily be improved. Unlike third base, the Twins already have the in-house options to make that possible. In fact, the Twins have so many in-house options that are major league ready that between the rotation and the 'pen there are going to have to be a few odd men out. It's a great problem to have, but it also means that the Twins might have the option of dealing guys like Perkins, Crain, Liriano or a selection of other replacement-level parts (see: prospects) to make everything fit.
Back to the project at hand, last year's 3.1 wins from the bullpen include performances from Luis Ayala, R.A. Dickey, Craig Breslow, Sean Henn, Juan Morillo, Armando Gabino and Philip Humber; only Ayala had a positive contribution (0.1).
Rauch contributed 0.3 wins to Minnesota after his arrival from Arizona, which means only that number was added to the relief corp's total. Having him around for an entire season should be a big help, and he should be a part of one of the American League's better pens.
Having said that, there may be some optimism plugged in. Nathan, Guerrier, Mijares, Crain and Manship (whose WAR totals from last season are actually included with the starters) all see incremental bumps in value, and expecting Neshek to be worth that much after being gone for most of the last two years might be asking for a bit much, but it's all achieveable. Nathan continues to be the only superstar reliever, but there is a luxury of bullpen depth this year. And as long as Neshek is healthy and can still stike guys out like it's going out of style, 0.7 wins is very achieveable for him.
That makes the pitching staff a total of 22.0 wins above replacement, an improvement of roughly four wins from 2009. There will be unexpected slumps and surprising stretches of shut-down pitching, but although four wins is a massive jump it's not unrealistic.
Add those 22 wins to the 23.3 wins estimated yesterday for position players, and on paper it looks like the Twins could be a 45.3 WAR ballclub. That translates into about 94 wins.
In 2010, if the Twins manage to win 94 games they should clear the AL Central with little trouble. Wins in the upper 80's are the most valuable because each one gives you a significantly better chance of making the post-season, and that's something it appears the Twins have been able to accomplish. Payroll reflects this, as Minnesota has assumed the luxury of paying a bit more money to guys like Crain and Young where they're numbers may not justify the salary. But where in the past the Twins may have opted for the less expensive route and taken a win or two off of their season total, this year the front office is paying extra to keep those wins on board.
There are still free agent options on the market, and there are players available via trade, that could help the Twins upgrade further. Kevin Kouzmanoff has been worth 2.73 wins over the last three seasons. Felipe Lopez would probably be worth a couple of wins. If the front office wants to upgrade, the options are still there, but if the Twins really are a 94-win team as they sit then the reality is this: additional upgrades won't be brought in to help the Twins in their bid to take the AL Central...they'll be brought in to help the Twins make their run through October.
0 recs |
47 comments
|
Comments
I think
That Duensing will surpass the WAR he put up last year (assuming he gets the innings, of course).
I also think that Slowey will have the best year on the staff. No real reason why, I just think that when he’s on he’s the best pitcher on the staff.
Yes and
to have 4 guy’s Duensing,Liriano,Manship,and Swarzak, for the #5 spot or ready to fill in for a injury. That’s better then some teams 2-5. I think the real Key will be Nathan and Hardy. Of coarse if either M&M boy goes down that would be death, but the year Nathan has could be Key. Let’s not forget that Hardy was sent to the Minors last year. If he sucks we are back to Harris-3b, Punto-SS,Casillia-2b or a mix of Plouffe,Tolbert,Valencia. Hardy is the Key!!
by b1 on Jan 1, 2010 10:37 AM EST up reply actions
I said yes, but...
I don’t think they would win 94 games if they played in the west or east. As bad as the central division was in 2009, it will be even worse in 2010. I fully expect the Royals to be a 3rd place team this year with about 70 wins. That means that the central will be home to the three worst teams in the AL (depending on what Baltimore does in the next couple months). That’s a lot of gimme wins for our favorite squad. Anything less than a playoff appearance in 2010 will be a huge disappointment, barring injuries of course.
by PinkiePinkerton on Dec 31, 2009 10:23 AM EST reply actions
I'm with you on this one ,,,
In fact, I’m thinking the central may be so bad that 94 wins might be a little bit of a low ball estimate.
Dave Cameron
hears that the M’s are “kicking the tires” on Francisco Liriano. Thoughts?
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett
The M's will contend if not be a favorite in the West this year.
It would depend on what they gave back. I’m certainly not opposed to the Twins shifting Liriano. I’ll have to take a look through the Seattle system.
Cameron
mentions Jose Lopez.
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett
by 33MorneauMVP on Dec 31, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
which
is the most idiotic trade I have heard since Souhan suggested trading Liriano.
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett
by 33MorneauMVP on Dec 31, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah I just saw that on his Twitter update.
I don’t want Lopez, either. Decent power but his defense doesn’t look all that good, he doesn’t get on base and he has no definition of a strike zone. I’ll keep Lizzy and hope for a bounce-back year, thanks. For the fraction of a win he’d probably be worth over Punto at second, I’m not interested.
He's not ideal,
but a second basemen witha .765 OPS the last two years in an extreme pitcher’s park is nothing to sneeze at. He has graded out about average over his career at second, and with his power looks to be an average to slightly above average player overall.
I’m not sure, but I think he has two years of arbitration left. What does Liriano have left? Lopez for Liriano straight up would be a bad deal, but it could be the start of something.
by Steven Ellingson on Dec 31, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
I agree, not a good trade
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m hesitant to trade Liriano at all,on the chance that he’ll have a bounce back to his 2008 form. Liriano has more upside than any of our other possible #5 starters, and I’d like to at least give him a shot.
Bill James, for one, projects a 3.67 FIP / 3.67 ERA for him, though only over 125 IP.
"So [Kouzmanoff]’s going to make decent monkey, but he’d be affordable." - Jesse
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Dec 31, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
Then it's BS
Cameron has been trying to trade Jose Lopez for everyone. He also thinks Jose Lopez is Chase Utley.
He did manage to get Betancourt traded
But not to the team he was trying to get him traded to (the Twins).
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
I would pay someone
to take Liriano, unless they are going to use him for a reliever when we have at least a 6 run lead, then dump him off. I wouldn’t trust a game in his hands at any time now, the rehab experiment should have been over long ago. He isn’t what he used to be and by the looks of it will never come close to it again.
I nominate this for most ridiculous comment of the year award
but it’s still early…
by Steven Ellingson on Jan 1, 2010 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
He could
However, more realistically, he could win 6.
by montanatwinsfan on Jan 1, 2010 10:03 PM EST up reply actions
I think thats to low
If he olny wins 6 it will be out of the Pen.
by b1 on Jan 2, 2010 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
I think it will easily be more than 6 if he makes the rotation, but I expect him to bounce back from last year
"So [Kouzmanoff]’s going to make decent monkey, but he’d be affordable." - Jesse
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Jan 2, 2010 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
I'm open to trading Liriano
but only for much more than Jose Lopez. Dave Cameron has included Lopez in virtually every trade scenario involving the M’s since before last season. I would have been open to Liriano for Hardy straight up, but Lopez simply isn’t much of an upgrade over Punto.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 3, 2010 12:15 AM EST up reply actions
With the addition
of another bat – Hudson, Beltre, Lopez, Kouzmanoff – I believe the Twins do have the potential to be a 94 win team. That said, I do not believe that the Twins will be a 94 win team especially with the likes of Punto/Tolbert/Casilla/Harris playing everyday.
Twins FO needs to determine which side of the infield they are going to improve and then they need to make the necessary calls to improve it.
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett
Here are the CHONE projections
Baker: 3.6
Slowey: 2.1
Blackburn: 2.0
Liriano: 1.6
Pavano: 1.5
Duensing: 1.4
Nathan: 1.5
Rauch: .5
Crain: .4
Guerrier: .3
Slama: .2
Mijares: .2
Delaney: .2
A lot of those
are pretty regressive-happy, but those totals would certainly change things. If the Twins only used those 13 pitchers for those amounts, it’s a pretty marginal pitching staff at 15.5 WAR. That’s worse than last year, and I just don’t see that as realistic.
There is a lot of regression
and there really is not one “good” pitching projection. But, a site that regresses a lot (and with pitchers at risk for injuries there is good reason to do so) needs to be balanced with an optimistic projection. So, one needs to weigh both sides and find a good baseline.
Pitching staffs that average 22 wins for their teams are top 5 staffs in MLB. That is a lot of wins to expect especially with Slowey, Liriano and Pavano as injury risks and coming off a year in which the Twins pitching staff was worth 16.4 wins.
I agree
Sure, regression happens and you need to account for it. But few projection systems also project for upside. Everything is based on past performance plus regression. That’s just not realistic for a lot of pitchers, especially after they get over the typical adjustment period to MLB competition.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
That's fair enough.
I’d be content to split the difference, which would make the pitching staff worth about 18-19 WAR. So, a 90-91 win squad. More realistic, probably.
Ha. I wouldn't have even said anything about "Dido" except I saw it more than once
I felt it my duty to let you know.
by Steven Ellingson on Jan 1, 2010 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
Wow, 2.1 WAR for Slowey looks pretty ridiculous to me.
Projecting 135 innings because of a wrist injury to an otherwise injury free playerseems silly. And what in his minor and major league track record suggests a 4.3 ERA? I’d be surprised if he doesn’t end up with at least 3 WAR. Pavano’s at least make sense because he’s lost multiple years to injmury, but I do think he’ll outperform a 4.5 ERA.
I don’t really understand his relief projections either. I’m not sure if he uses leverage index or not, but those all seem awful low.
by Steven Ellingson on Dec 31, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
CHONE relievers
The runs above replacement are unleveraged. CHONE is fairly optimistic about the quality of Twins pitchers just not their durability. Baker and Blackburn are the only SP pegged for more than 180 innings. I think Jesse’s projections are best case and CHONE is near the floor.
by Jon Kammerer on Dec 31, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
This is spot on
Somewhere in the middle is a good baseline.
Jesse,
I think your projections are optimistic. I guess there might not be any way to realistically project in the probability of injuries but there should be. I suspect that even if your WAR projections are accurate, all it would take is one significant injury to throw us off of a 94 win season. That is ONE significant injury to any one of: Baker, Mauer, Morneau, Span or Nathan or Kubel. Heck even an injury to Cuddyer or Punto could be painful as this team just doesn’t have significant depth anywhere (except maybe in the pitching department).
Of course one could argue that your WAR projections are overly pessimistic because we could have another 2006 year where several players have career years all at once and we (like the rockband KISS) move toward total world domination. But no one can make that argument with a straight face compared to the realistic possibility that Nathan, or Morneau, or Mauer will see significant time on the DL.
Although I will agree with PinkiePinkerton that the AL Central might just be bad enough that we could do quite well.
by montanatwinsfan on Dec 31, 2009 11:56 AM EST reply actions
optimism
I think the twins could be a decent team this year, but I think that EXPECTING 94 wins right now (i.e. the mean of all possible outcomes, weighted by each’s probability), is nowhere near 94 wins. The twins are much more likely to win 84 than 104, for instance, even though they are in the Central.
I’d be very curious at the results of this poll, if it was done across the SBNation sites. I doubt most non-twins fans would expect 90 wins.
That said, if we find another piece or two, and a couple of things do go well this year, we could be a good team (90+ wins). The keys, to me, are getting either another infielder, an upgrade in the rotation, or another outfielder (CF) plus a bench bat.. We would also need good performance, which would mean Mauer/Span/Morneau/Cuddyer/Kubel, as a group, can’t regress too much from last year, no big injuries, and Slowey/Blackburn/one other pitcher would need show age appropriate development.
Now – if everyone here had to bet, what’s your over under on wins? Remember, this is the 50% above, 50% below mark. anyone who says 94 is a sucker, and should never go near vegas. Mine is 87 with the pieces they have right now, and probably 89-90 by the time the finish making one or two more changes (I’m assuming they still will get either a picther, infielder or outfielder from outside the organization).
I think 87 is fair for an over-under.
And I would bet for more than 87. Based on what we have now and the strength of the AL Central I don’t necessarily believe the Twins would win 94 games, but I think they could make 90.
huh?
We are better than last years team and we won 87 games…. I don’t think that low 90s is unrealistic right now, especially given the weak central… 94 seems a bit high, but 92 is pretty realistic.
by diehardtwinsfan on Jan 1, 2010 8:57 PM EST up reply actions
I think 87 is pretty fair
perhaps 88 or 89 for an over under, but right around there. While I believe our starting rotation appears better than 2009 (primarily due to an expected full season from Slowey), I cannot say our offense is better until we address 2B and/or 3B. The only reason I might put us at over 90 wins is the current state of the AL Central (Detroit, KC and Cleveland), but those teams still have the rest of the offseason…
by Adam Peterson on Jan 3, 2010 12:22 AM EST up reply actions
Without showing us exactly where these numbers are coming from, it's hard to say
but most projection systems dock everyone to account for the fact that one person may be injured the whole season. I’d like to see what his playing time estimates are.
The only real way to project the standings would be to project ALL of the AL using the same methods, and then look at the average win total. If it’s higher than 81, you need to adjust everyone down. I have a feeling if Jesse did this with every team, the average win total would be a few wins above 81, which would bring our projection down to a more reasonable 90-91.
by Steven Ellingson on Dec 31, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
most of these are coming
from fan estimates over at FanGraphs. The rest of my own estimated figures.
WAR?
Why is the WAR a more powerful stat then the RAEKWON, GZA or ODB? I mean WAR sounds violent, and everyone knows that the WU-STATS are for the children.
Proprietor of Hockey Wilderness - We take Minnesota hockey WAY too seriously.
Like I told Mike,
I don’t have access to RAEKWON, GZA or ODB numbers. I can’t reverse-engineer those. Have Mike get me those and we’ll see where we sit.
Wu-sh
Sound of a joke going over Jesse’s head.
Hahaha...no, I get it.
It’s my role to play along. :)
I’m still waiting for Mike to get my Punto’s DUP numbers, too.
WAR? Huh! What is it good for?
Don’t forget RZA
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?" -Joe Kapp
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Dec 31, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
Zips
I have the Twins as a 87.8 win team using Zips projections. Zips likes our position players a lot, 25.7 WAR. Not very high on our staff, 13.7 WAR. Projection systems are very cautious with pitchers. Using 3 year weighted averages of FIP, I got 90.8 wins with 16.7 WAR from the staff.

by 
























