As the Rotation Turns: Blue Jays Interested in Minnesota's Kevin Slowey?
by Jesse on Mar 9, 2011 8:30 AM EST
in News
Email
PrintThis last week has been hell on the future of the Minnesota Twins rotation. Basically, all we knew was that Carl Pavano was going to be in the mix, because at random points throughout the spring there have been questions about each of the other five pitchers. Francisco Liriano trade rumors surfaced, Brian Duensing was the source of fan frustration as both sides made good arguments as to whether he should start or come out of the bullpen, Nick Blackburn is one of "Gardy's guys" (which may or may not mean something), Scott Baker hasn't looked too hot this spring and had a minor setback with his elbow prior to that, and now this with Kevin Slowey.
Those Liriano rumors were put to rest, although it sounds like there may have been some preliminary banter just after the New Year. Duensing has already received Gardy's blessing for the rotation, so that's three. Between Baker, Blackburn and Slowey, however, nothing has been settled, but it doesn't take a crystal ball to help you read between the lines: the Twins are gauging market interest in one of their starters. Even if we're not 100% sure which one of those guys they'd prefer to deal.
Yesterday, Joe Christense tweeted that the Blue Jays were scouting Slowey at the B game (in which Slowey pitched three very good innings, it should be noted). Actually, to be fair, Christensen states that Toronto had scouts there and he was told they were interested in Slowey...and I don't need to tell you there's a difference, but it's an easy conclusion to make.
Last night, Ben Nicholson-Smith of MLBTR articulated how the Jays aren't short on pitching, mentioning how deep they were in competition for a rotation spot. Slowey may have more experience than some of those guys, and Nicholson-Smith goes on to list the immense depth the Jays seem to have in the bullpen: Octavio Dotel, Frank Francisco, Jason Frasor, Jon Rauch, Shawn Camp, Casey Janssen, Carlos Villanueva, and Josh Roenicke.
Are the Twins reallly going to be looking for relief help for one of their starting pitchers? In my interview with Assistant GM Rob Antony a couple of weeks ago, we talked about this towards the end of the conversation:
J: In the scenario where you maybe end up moving one of those guys, do you know what you'd be looking for in return?
RA: That's where spring training and some other things would have to play out. At this point the question marks are in the bullpen, and like I said we have a lot of candidates and a lot of options. I don't think we'd trade away one of our starting pitchers for a middle reliever or something. It would have to be something that would make sense for us. We'll let things unfold and develop.
And a trade isn't even the most likely scenario, it's a possible scenario.
J: Sure.
RA: I'm not sure what route we'd go, but I'd think we'd just want to get talent and something equitable back.
The Twins have already dealt one major player from their 25-man roster for work-in-progress relief help this winter. While Antony suggests that they wouldn't move one of their starters for a Jim Hoey or a Brett Jacobson, does this preclude them from thinking about bigger names?
No doubt a name like Dotel, Francisco or Frasor in the Minnesota bullpen would suddenly change the group's aspect. Instead of trying to fill three or maybe four of those bullpen roles with unproven arms, suddenly you're including a proven and effective reliever in a group that includes Joe Nathan, Matt Capps and Jose Mijares. It's worth noting that a strong bullpen addition just doesn't make the core of that unit stronger, more imposing, it also makes the back end stronger.
For the record, I'm perfectly happy to keep all six of our guys around. Injuries happen, guys have bad seasons, and having the luxury of an extra starter with experience (and one that's moderately talented as well) is more important than running out and trying to make your bullpen a little bit better. Admittedly I don't know the whole picture, including how accurate the Blue Jay rumor might be or how the Twins plan on fitting out their bullpen beyond 2011, but for today I'm happy to buy into the old cliche': you can't have too much starting pitching.
81 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I wouldn't mind trading Slowey for relief help,
provided its solid relief help (i.e. Frasor, Dotel, etc.). It still leaves us with five starters, and Perkins is servicable as a fifth starter, as well as Manship/Swarzak. By midseason, Gibson should be ready anyways. The most glaring need right now is experienced bullpen help, and Slowey is the most tradeable starter.
Perkins/Manship/Swarzak/Gibson
are all only needed in case of injury, of course.
Next week on "As the Rotation Turns!"
Kevin Slowey gets amnesia! Nick Blackburn is kidnapped and impersonated by his evil twin! Scott Baker is arrested by a skeptical cop who can’t believe he’s 21 and thinks his actual ID is a fake!
This was a triumph
I'm making a note here - huge success
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Mar 9, 2011 9:16 AM EST reply actions 5 recs
It's funny
how the Twins continue to think bullpen is such a problem.Their weakest area is middle infield and it has been for years, except for last season. Hmmmm.
I just don’t get the infatuation this team has with with trading away value for relief help.
I agree
If you have to have a weakness, bullpen is the easiest one to have.
We can always try out our extra starters in the bullpen as well.
This was a triumph
I'm making a note here - huge success
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Mar 9, 2011 9:25 AM EST up reply actions
weak spots
middle infield, bench (someone who can hit & field), OF (someone who can hit & field).
One correction
Between Baker, Blackburn and Slowey, however, nothing has been settled,
According to several sources in both papers, Gardy has named Blackburn his fourth starter. So it’s down to Baker or Slowey for the fifth spot.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
I linked back to Gardy's rant against new media.
His comment about the players talking to Anderson is vague, he doesn’t confirm or deny it. It’s what I’d thought as well until that point.
Maybe he is. But I haven’t seen anything concrete since Gardy went off on one.
Yep, Blackburn's "one of his guys"....
Idiot. No other manager in baseball would put Blackburn in the rotation over Slowey or Baker.
And agree on MI as a need. The Twins just have zero ability to self-evaluate.
I have very little faith in Bill Smith getting good value for Slowey.
And at the same time...
Nick Blackburn has been a serviceable starter for the Twins. I am sure that any other organization would love to have him as a starter. Granted he will not be starting with the Yankees, but he would be a great long reliever and that is what the Yankees need.
There might be other managers that would do so, (un)fortunately.
Gardenhire’s certainly a buffoon with precious little awareness of what creates/costs marginal wins, but so are many/most other managers. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: there’s too much money involved and in 20 years baseball management will look very different than it does today.
I completely agree regarding everything else.
How many teams would want such a buffoon
.550 winning percentage over 9 years, tied for third best of active managers with Scioscia and 33rd all time, while managing with the entire team except Cuddyer turned over during that time, while coping with a black hole at 3rd, 2nd and SS the last five years (not that Rivas and Guzman struck fear into opposing pitchers), with a front office that couldn’t afford to keep star players when they hit free agency and losing MVP caliber players for months at a time. The trouble with an extended history of success is that people forget what bad baseball looks like (see Twins, Minnesota, 1999).
The only stat that counts is W
by wayback on Mar 9, 2011 8:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Dude, I follow the Pirates. I see plenty of bad baseball.
PLEASE don’t tell me Ron Gardenhire constructs anything like an ideal lineup or bunts with anything approaching even unconscious awareness of game theory. (To the utter contrary in both cases.) Please don’t tell me he understands modern methods of talent evaluation. These things have been researched to death. Ideal approaches are fairly well understood, they’re just not (remotely) implemented by Gardenhire. Indeed, the very mindset it takes to look at these things objectively is at best viewed with disdian and at worst lampooned by traditionalists like him. His idea of advanced statistical analysis is looking at a 20 PA sample of past history between a hitter and pitcher. The fact is, Gardenhire doesn’t approach them even remotely ideally. He is very probably “good with the guys” and not one to demoralize the players by injudicious application of verbal/emotional force, but that doesn’t mean he’s not a shitty manager. Again, this doesn’t mean all the other managers are less shitty, it just means baseball is a bizarrely tradition-bound game.
You mention coping with a middle infield black hole. Take a look at Punto’s WAR for 2006 and 2008. Is that a black hole? Recall that a large if not decisive part of the reason there will again be a black hole at short is Gardenhire’s barely disguised distaste for J.J. Hardy and consequent request for a bunch of speedy guys. You may have noticed the Twins running into bunches of outs this spring training thanks to Gardy’s desire to Manage, as well as the one happily successful hit and run which thanks to the Confirmation Bias will serve to ensure it continues way too often, way too long.
Feel free to add up the Twins WAR during the Gardenhire years. It’s entirely possible that you’ll come up with an “inexplicable” game or two some or even most of those years. You feel free to attribute that to Gardenhire’s managerial genius if you like. Knock yourself out. Such a crafty guy, always outfoxing those other saps by letting Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau and Torii Hunter, y’know, bat, or letting Johan Santana or Brad Radke or Joe Nathan, um, pitch. Damn, he’s good.
by tobynotjason on Mar 10, 2011 3:21 AM EST up reply actions
Managing has almost nothing to do with situational baseball now
Managing is about handling personalities and getting them prepared and motivated to win for 162 games. That is what Gardenhire is great at doing and it’s why his situational baseball foibles can be completely overlooked. Buck Showalter is a good situational manager but loses his clubhouse and wears out his welcome quickly.
Gardenhire has input as to the personnel but ultimately that’s Bill Smith’s call.
The Twins got Pavano and Thome to return despite good offers from contenders (check their quotes this spring). The reason they came back (according to both players) was Gardenhire and his staff.
This is why I'm not on the "FIRE GARY" bandwagon
I agree with tobynotjason that Gardy isn’t much of a strategic wizard, and I think his personnel evaluation often leaves a lot to be desired as well. But the Twins always project an excellent clubhouse atmosphere, they rarely have off-field trouble, and players seem to legitimately want to play there. I think Gardy deserves his share of credit for those things as well.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
I partially agree
in the sense that its certainly true that managers today are often hired/retained in significant (but not exclusive) part for their ability to “handle personalities.” That this is true may help to explain why I was able to accurately say that none of my criticisms of Gardenhire should be taken to indicate that all the other MLB managers are vastly better at lineup construction/situational management, although I guess I do think he’s in the bottom tier of managers on this stuff. Certainly it’s a big bottom tier and the top tier is probably only occupied by a couple guys, and even they don’t implement everything sabr-style research has established (with more demonstrable confidence, at least, than the conventional crap instituted in its stead). But the underlying reason strategy and tactics are so bad league wide is simply that the management (general and field) of baseball are afraid or actively opposed to breaking with conventions, often due to fear-based considerations other than maximizing winning.
That he’s not uniquely bad hardly indicates this is the way it ought to be. Just because he is generally good with the clubhouse (although clearly there have been players with whom he categorically does not jibe) doesn’t mean his “situational baseball foibles can be completely overlooked.” Why? On what basis should fans say, “Never mind that he could do a much better job, he gets a free pass, period.” Particularly when this is an area where a comparative advantage is there for the taking. There’s absolutely no reason a guy like Gardenhire can’t read a freakin’ book or, more likely, talk to some people and learn something that hasn’t been part of baseball’s “strategy” conventions since 1900 rather than just view “advanced” analysis and analysts as nerds-in-mom’s-basement who, of course “never played the game at a high level.”
You are correct that personnel decisions are ultimately Bill Smith’s call. How that obviates Gardenhire’s glaring deficiencies in that area I really don’t see. As you say, he does have real, meaningful input, and that’s been seen time and again in moves made by the front office. He doesn’t have to get his way each and every time before it makes sense to criticize him.
BTW, Wasn’t Pavano’s only better offer New York? I’m sure he was just dying to go play in front of those fans. That issue aside, wasn’t the margin something like 1-2 million? At the level of wealth and income he’s at, things like uprooting your family and life are gonna play a huge role in coloring those decisions for many players. I’m not saying the fact that Gardenhire is here and not “shit crazy sadist” (quoting something a guy said at bucsdugout about him) like Showalter didn’t matter. But given that you can’t teach “good guy-ness” and you CAN teach situational baseball/lineup construction/talent evaluation, why be satisfied with someone who is just horrible at those things?
by tobynotjason on Mar 10, 2011 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
What exactly is he so bad at?
He bats his best hitter 3rd, his best power hitter 4th and tries to put high OBP guys at the top and high speed guys at the bottom. I’ve never had an issue with Gardy’s lineup construction.
I’ve never had an issue with his bullpen management or how he handles pitchers. He has made mistakes in particular games (show me the manager who hasn’t) but he is good at making sure his bullpen is available over the long haul.
There are very few good players that were “forced out” by Gardenhire. Kyle Lohse and David Ortiz stuck around until they were about to get more salary than their results to date said they deserved. The Twins are one of the better teams at talent evaluation, they’re definitely not “horrible”.
Sometimes he gives a player a chance to fail by giving up the advantage in a particular game situation, or even for weeks at a time. That’s one reason the players like playing for the guy. Sometimes they play for 1 run when they shouldn’t but I don’t see Gardenhire as being anywhere near the worst at this.
There is a very short list of managers that “out-manage” Gardy. Mike Scioscia is up there. OTOH I’ve seen Gardy outfox Jim Leyland and Ozzie Guillen on multiple occasions.
He has his weaknesses
But it’s tough to argue with his success, especially in light of superior talent in his division competition for most of his tenure. What he does best is get marginally talented guy ready to play. His fault is, he tends to over appreciate those guys because he’s so personally invested in their success.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Mar 10, 2011 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That is an issue
He doesn’t seem to grasp that he can find another marginally talented guy to coach up. Either that or he’s just falling into that human trap of wanting to not have to do all that work over again.
Well put re: the second part.
The talent issue is not what people think it is. Reminds me of myths regarding the 1948 war in Palestine/Israeli War of Independence. Were there superstars elsewhere in the division? Sure. Was there a better pitcher in the division (or baseball) than Johan Santana in the middle part of the decade? A significantly better reliever than Nathan? A better center fielder than Hunter? Later, the same re: Mauer and Morneau. The Twins have had some really, really good players on the roster for a long time, now. Not sure how far over Pythagorean the Twins were from year to year, but I’m willing to throw the Dome effects in to the mix for a win (maybe more) a year beyond that of the typical home park before I’ll credit anything related to Gardenhire’s strategy or tactics.
Again: I do not doubt that most players like playing for him and are relatively motivated. I do doubt that this has nearly the effect on results some people think it does.
Regarding your “well put” point: he’d probably be a fantastic instructor in the minor leagues.
by tobynotjason on Mar 12, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
Batting your best hitter 3rd is just. plain. wrong.
Research concludes that your best hitter should usually hit 2nd, although depending on his specific hitting profile 1st or 4th is sometimes acceptable. Regardless, the best three hitters should hit 1st, 2nd and 4th. A relatively low OBP, high power guy should fill the 3 hole. The number three hitter comes up with nobody on and two out more than anybody else. Remember when everybody wanted Mauer hitting 2nd? They were right.
Gardenhire plays for one run early ALL the time and thereby does crazy (within the confines of the conceivably possible for a manager to do) damage to the Twins WE. His bunting “strategy” is a case study in what not to do. He doesn’t even accidentally happen into anything that looks like a game-theoried approach. Ironically his insistence on hitting Punto or Casilla when they weren’t red hot or Matt Tolbert (ever) 2nd frequently made his love of the early bunt less egregious, since these players bats were so poor. (Still not correct, just less bad. And it’s not like that number two hitter decision was written in a stone tablet and bequeathed to him from on high.)
You may be right regarding his standing on the overall totem pole, since obviously I’m biased by following the Twins and getting all angry-like at the crap he pulls. As I tried to make clear: that other people do the things he does, too, only makes it MORE frustrating, since there’s such a comparative advantage begging to be gained.
Too many of his pitching decisions are driven predominantly or entirely (if we believe what he’s said about them, at least, which I have no reason not to) by irrelevant player v. player matchup histories that should play NO factor. He fails to recognize when generic platoon strategy doesn’t apply (due to one or both players involved have a long track record of not conforming to norms).
I would not, on a general level, say players shouldn’t get a chance to fail. When there’s good reason to believe he will, that’s different. Without a specific example I’m happy to say I don’t have a major issue with that.
In the end you can only gain or cost your team a couple games a season through this stuff, but IT’S HIS JOB so I am not now nor will I ever let him off the hook.
by tobynotjason on Mar 12, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry
I was too busy looking at a team that won 94 games last year. Were you saying something?
The only stat that counts is W
by wayback on Mar 10, 2011 10:14 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Oh, you mean the team where Mauer was worth 5.1 WAR
surely because of Gardenhire? And Morneau was worth 5.3 WAR thanks to good ol’ Gardy? The one where he led Liriano to 6.0 WAR? Etc.
What a compelling argument you make: they won 94 games with a bunch of good and great players who had hugely productive years, therefore Ron Gardenhire is (1) brilliant and (2) a strategic and tactical genius. I totally follow the reasoning. I’ll just pretend every single suboptimal move he makes doesn’t exist and everything that comes out of his mouth is a ruse designed to lull everybody into the misconception that he’s not that bright a guy.
Next time I think, “Oh wonderful, he’s gonna bunt here in the first inning of a 0-0 game with a non-pitcher at the plate, a hitter’s count and the other team anticipating his bunt,” I’ll know he’s just randomly doing so because he recognizes the need to ensure that in the future the opposing managers might still respond to a similar situation suboptimally by overdefending the bunt. Yeah. Right.
by tobynotjason on Mar 10, 2011 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Why is it only the bad players that you get credit for helping?
I’ve seen people rail on the Twins coaches. Why don’t the Twins coaches get some of the credit for Joe Mauer winning batting titles, Justin Morneau developing into an all-star slugger or Joe Nathan being developed into a shutdown closer? Why in the world wouldn’t they get credit for turning Liriano into a terrific pitcher on two separate occasions?
Torii Hunter could have turned into another toolsy flop in another organization. This is cliched managerial criticism. When players do well they did it on their own. When players do poorly it’s all the manager’s fault.
Regarding the Twins coaching...
the thing is, I’ve never seen them fix anything major, really. Every time they take a flyer on a guy with raw tools but flaws he ends up released. Liriano was a mess and he was successful, now he has a safer delivery and after a lot of practice with it he’s successful.
That said, the Twins minor league instruction seems solid as a whole, although I like others wonder whether they need to force EVERY player into the same boxes. I have no criticisms of their amateur scouting/talent evaluation. Ask smart Royals fans whether amateur and big league evaluation is the same thing.
by tobynotjason on Mar 12, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
No, I mean the team that won the division and 92 games despite a 95 OPS+ in 2004
and still managed to finish with a winning record in 2005 when the team had an OPS+ of 88. Yeah, anyone can win with Mauer and Morneau, but Gardy also won with Henry Blanco and Luis Rivas. Honestly, I do give more credit for the Twins resurgence to Rick Anderson. Dick Such ruined more pitchers than torn rotator cuffs. Pitching was the biggest difference between the Kelly and Gardenhire Twins until the team was able to build a better offense around the M&M boys.
The only stat that counts is W
One side of the story
You can win with a mediocre offense if you have good pitching, and the Twins had good pitching. The team with the 95 OPS+ had an ERA+ of 117 – they didn’t have to have a great offense. The 2005 team’s ERA+ was even better, at 120, but the wretched offense and a really good White Sox team were too much for them.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
Because?
A bunch of mediocre to decent pitchers in 2001 suddenly become decent to excellent all at the same time in 2002 just like that and hang on to that improvement through the next three years all by themselves? That’s why I said Anderson (and Gardy choosing Anderson) deserve most of the credit for the team’s turnaround. Also notice during that period the Twins were winning 5 to 8 more games than predicted by the Pythagorean record. I think at least part of that difference can be attributed to the manager.
The only stat that counts is W
I would add Vavra to the list of stellar coaches
This team underperformed on offense prior to his arrival.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
I said it above...
but I would credit the Metrodome’s park effects with any Pythag (thanks for that, btw, although you typed this two days ago and obviously weren’t responding to me) before I give credit to Gardenhire tactics and strategy.
This bears repeating: my premise is Gardenhire is (1) not smart and (2) tactically and strategically poor. I did not impugn him as an instructor, although given the repeated failure of his staff to do anything with any of the toolsy flyers they’ve acquired I see no reason to give them credit for players’ success.
Regarding Anderson, the recent series of articles about HR/FB rate and the Giants on fangraphs contained a very interesting finding regarding Twins pitching, and it does not bolster the idea that he’s optimizing outcomes.
by tobynotjason on Mar 12, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
sorry, "with any outperformance of Pythag"
by tobynotjason on Mar 12, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
If it was park effect
Why did the Twins have a worse record than the Pythagorean average from 1994-99?
The only stat that counts is W
Sorry, I just realized I completely "misspoke" when I said Pythagorean twice above. My bad there.
I completely brain farted. What’s the term for aggregate WAR added to replacement wins converted to a record? I feel like there’s a non-acronym term for it. THAT is what I meant. Basically: Team WAR converted to a 162 game record. To be sure, the point was not meant to be taken as a cornerstone of my argument: it was rhetorical flourish to drive home what I think of Gardenhire’s strategic and tactical nous (i.e. it’s “benefits” were < Dome). I addressed specific several points above (lineup, bunting, etc.) I guess if you think he bunts anything like ideally, I’ll direct you to The Book and withdraw from further discussion since we don’t share a common basis of analysis.
Regarding Pythag (actual Pythag, not what I was talking about using the wrong name) my understanding is that except in REALLY extreme cases there’s absolutely zero reason to “account” for variations from Pythagorean win expectation, is there? It would be like casting about for an explanation when a pitcher had a .340 BABIP for a season or two. There will be variation around “average” — lots of little variation and some larger deviations.
by tobynotjason on Mar 12, 2011 10:43 PM EST up reply actions
Slowey
All strategic and technical aspects aside, Slowey is a class act and it would be a damn shame to lose him.
Yes it would be
"There are three things in my life which I really love: God, my family, and baseball. The only problem—once baseball season starts, I change the order around a bit." -Al Gallagher
by twinsgirl197 on Mar 9, 2011 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah the guy is flat out intelligent too
I read somewhere if he hadn’t been such an athlete and a great pitcher when he was in High_school he was considering Yale or Princeton or something like that
"TAKE THE DRAFT PICK(S) !!! "
Trading Liriano right now is partially insane, unless we get Montero and Sanchez and Banuelos and Bentances and Gardner...
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Mar 9, 2011 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
He didn't get a baseball scholarship
He got an academic scholarship and played baseball
If we could pry Zach Stewart from them
the AAA P (who can start or relieve)
I’d be willing to dangle Slowey otherwise there isn’t a how lot there I like unless we get a Frasor + a prospect
"TAKE THE DRAFT PICK(S) !!! "
Trading Liriano right now is partially insane, unless we get Montero and Sanchez and Banuelos and Bentances and Gardner...
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Mar 9, 2011 10:34 AM EST reply actions
i should retract that, there is plenty there
they have a top 5 farm system in baseball, just not a whole lot there i think would be available
If Brett Lawrie is at all attainable I’d throw Slowey and Luke Hughes into the hat to get him…
Nishi to Alexi = Double Play
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Mar 9, 2011 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
Isn't Hughes the poorman's Lawrie.
Both 2nd basemen with big bats and susceptible gloves?
FREE AIRWOLF!
ROHLFING!!!!!
For Who?
If Bill Smith trades Slowey away for bullpen help, I’m gonna be pissed. If you don’t view Slowey as a starter, you have to consider him a bullpen arm, and probably a pretty decent one. There are zero options in the Toronto bullpen that I’d be happy with in a 1-1 trade. We have a solid starter (every bit as “solid” as Baker/Blackburn anyway) that’s dirt cheap and under team control. Why in God’s name would we even consider trading him for a bullpen arm that’s no better than the one he’ll provide if he doesn’t make the rotation. And don’t even get me started on the risks associated with ditching him and relying on Blackburn (who had an ERA of nearly 6 last season) and Baker (who’s generally either hurt or wildly inconsistent). Sorry for the rant…. I’m just so tired of trading value away for bullpen arms.
+1 I think Slowey in our bullpen today
is immediately the 4th or 5th best option behind only Nathan, Capps and maybe Mijares or Neshek…
"TAKE THE DRAFT PICK(S) !!! "
Trading Liriano right now is partially insane, unless we get Montero and Sanchez and Banuelos and Bentances and Gardner...
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Mar 9, 2011 11:05 AM EST up reply actions
I don't feel the same way
I’d say Nathan, Capps, Slowey. I think Slowey is going to be better than Matt Guerrier in the bullpen, probably just as good as Duensing.
Yep
I think he will dominate in the bullpen. I’d rather have him than just about anybody available from the Blue Jays.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Mar 9, 2011 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
rule of 17
You can expect a 17% increase in strike out rate, a 17% decrease in HR rate, and a 17 point drop in BABIP on moving to the bullpen. Most pitchers drop 0.75 to 1 off their ERA. Slowey projects for a 4.22 ERA with Marcel as a starter. So he should be our 3rd best reliever behind Nathan and Capps.
by Jon Kammerer on Mar 9, 2011 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
Slowey, like Hardy
if traded would be a loss for us. All 9 starting positions are filled. Hughes,Plouffe, Tolbert are good back-ups. Tosoni,Revere,Benson,Repko are all good back-up OF’s. Who would we trade for? a washed-up mid-rel? Slowey will be a damn good Relief pitcher and cheep!
by b1 on Mar 9, 2011 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
Cool info
I knew pitchers generally improved their stats quite a bit, but I didn’t know exactly how much.
Any idea why the big drop in BABIP? Do relievers just induce that much weaker contact?
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
I'd guess platoon and 1st time through effect
here’s the source article if you want to look at the research more. http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/starter_v_relief_1953_2008/
And he should exceed those averages
Because of the oft-quoted first-time/second-time/third-time splits. Hitters’ ops goes up 100 points per time through the order against him.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Oft-quoted by only you
You always fail to mention that hitters’ OPS against Blackburn goes up by 100 points the second time through the order, too. And the first time through the order everyone hits like J.J. Hardy’s career averages against Blackburn.
by DK on Mar 9, 2011 4:40 PM EST up reply actions
Actually, his numbers are the reverse of Slowey's
Blackburn tends to get stronger as the game goes along. If he gets shelled, it’s in the first couple of innings. That’s the difference between starters and relievers. Starters struggle early and settle inlate. Relievers dominate early and struggle on subsequent times through the order.
And I wasn’t even the one who quoted this. It was DUL and Jesse.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Do you ever actually do any research?
This is at least the third time I have easily shown you to have said something demonstrably false by looking up simple numbers.
Blackburn’s career OPS against the first time through the lineup is .743 (worse than Slowey’s .683), and the second time through, Blackburn’s is .840 (i.e. roughly 100 points higher, as I stated, and worse than Slowey’s .774). That is not at all “get[ting] stronger as the game goes along”.
by DK on Mar 9, 2011 8:48 PM EST up reply actions
And the third time through?
I do research. But I admit, I typically remember and repeat research that others have published on this site. Said research was published often since Pavano was signed, when we discussed whom to send to the bullpen.
I’ll be the first to admit that sometimes my memory is faulty. And I don’t often check when others post stats as facts. I take them on face value. In this case, I think you will find that Blackburn gets better as he tires and his sinker induces more ground balls. That is what others published shortly after the Pavano signing. It’s possible they were full of it. But I doubt it.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
3rd time
it’s .765 (worse than 1st time, better than 2nd), 4th time it’s .889.
Clearly it’s worst DEEP into games. The fact that he can “boast” a .765 OPS 3rd pass through is not exactly a ringing endorsement of his talent. That it’s better than the 2nd time through is probably due in part to selection bias rather than the effect on his sinker, as the games he’s allowed to pitch to guys the third time through are games when he’s had successful outcomes so far, which is frequently a consequence of having good stuff that game. The biggest difference in the OPS from lineup-pass to lineup-pass is in his walk rate, which is highest the 1st and 2nd pass through. Again, there’s probably selection bias going on here.
by tobynotjason on Mar 10, 2011 3:31 AM EST up reply actions
Selection bias and walk rates
I don’t think selection bias plays much of a part with a relatively large sample size. As for walk rates, it jives with the thought that he struggles when he’s too strong. In the games when he struggles, it’s the first two times through the order.
He will always have a relatively high OPS against because he doesn’t miss bats. But he has success because he induces a relatively high number of DPs.
I’m not saying he’s necessarily a better starter than Slowey, just that Slowey is a better candidate to relieve. He does miss bats. He rarely walks people. And he doesn’t do as well the second or third time trough.
On the other hand, sinker ballers are not good candidates to relieve because they tend to struggle early if they struggle.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Slowey just keeps getting worse
Blackburn is better than Slowey (.957 OPS against) the 3rd time through. That’s what Gardenhire sees. Slowey is a continuous fade, Blackburn plateaus. If you’re looking for a 5th starter to soak up innings then Blackburn isn’t a bad choice.
He's a decent fifth starter
That’s about it.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
No doubt Slowey's K/BB goes from
otherworldly in the first and second trip (4.87, 6.50) to merely pretty good (2.81) in the third pass. His BABIP is also .328 3rd pass through, so maybe there’s a little bad luck there. This is only Slowey’s age 26 season and he’s had his injury troubles, so there’s reason to be optimistic that his peak will see him effective later in games.
by tobynotjason on Mar 10, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
I agree
Assuming he regains the range of option in his wrist, he should be back on track. Last year, he struggled to get the kind of movement that helped him miss bats in prior years. And he made it worse by overthrowing to try to compensate.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
I'm not concerned about the bullpen
This is as long as Nathan is healthy. I’m not expecting old Nathan but I am expecting at least a solid closer or top setup guy production from him. If that holds true then a Capps/Mijares setup combo is good enough for me and I have to believe some other arms will step up. You’ve got guys who were once solid still making their way back from major injuries (Neshek/Hoey) that are now far enough removed they can hopefully make it work. We also have some ragtag AAAA/waiver claim guys that the Twins seem to do well at pulling something from. That with our prospects that are very close like Slama, Gutierrez, Bullock, Waldrop, Burnett there’s so many options I have to believe someone steps it up.
The only way I’d be ok with trading Slowey would be for a middle infielder but I have no idea who would be available.
For right now unless something major happens in the next few weeks I’d like to see Slowey stay with the Twins. If he starts in the bullpen then great and we can see how how Casilla/Nishioka perform and give some guys shots in the bullpen. It also gives the Twins a chance to see how the guys at AAA are doing and see if they’d feel comfortable with one of them starting when one of our current 5 inevitably gets injured. I like a wait and see approach unless some desperate team overpays.
Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?
Another thing too is that Andy and co.
Are looking for that guy to replace Matt Guerrier and Anderson thought it could be Jeff Manship
well guess what, Kevin Slowey has a real chance to replace Guerriers shoes, Manship does not.
"TAKE THE DRAFT PICK(S) !!! "
Trading Liriano right now is partially insane, unless we get Montero and Sanchez and Banuelos and Bentances and Gardner...
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Mar 9, 2011 11:07 AM EST reply actions
The Blue Jays have a lot of scouts.
And they may just be scouting Slowey on the potential for him becoming a Yankee.
by timprov on Mar 9, 2011 12:44 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I suggested that above
Slowey would make good sense for long relief in New York.
I can’t really imagine this happening. If we need bullpen help and he is the odd starter out, let’s stick him in the bullpen … he’ll do better there than anyone who we would trade for.
But of course he isn’t the odd man out. He’s in the top three or four, depending on how you rate Duensing. Let’s just toss the Jays Blackburn to get rid of his salary and call it a day.
Indeed
Do they not realize that lots of successful relievers are failed starters? Heck, look at the team’s closers for the past two decades – Joe Nathan, Eddie Guardado, and Rick Aguilera all were originally starting pitchers. Why trade a starter for a reliever when you could just make the guy a reliever?
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
In the mlbtr chat today
someone mentioned Slowey to the Pirates for Joel Hanrahan I think this could be a good deal for both sides we have 6+ starters they have 2 closer candidates we could use another good bp arm they could defiantly use another starter. If they want to move him for a reliever I would much rather them get someone of Hanrahans skill set 13k/9 last year than a Frasor or Dotel from Toronto. Im not to worried about rotation depth if they trade Slowey we have Gibson waiting in the wings along with other serviceable 5th starters should the need arise.
I'd rather deal off relief now than add it
I’d be more inclined to keep Slowey and deal Matt Capps than to deal Slowey and keep Capps.
As a Pirates fan, sign me up.
Slowey has two more years of team control after this year, right? Hanrahan’s a very good relief pitcher. RELIEF. PITCHER.
the whole relief thing is
they arent going to get more for Slowey. If they want to deal him, and im still on the fence of weather they should or not, they are not going to get a huge return. That being said the only position we could really upgrade through a not so much return trade is relief, shortstop, or bench, they wouldnt get a large if any upgrade for Casilla at short with just Slowey and trading him for bench help is just as bad if not worse than trading him for a reliever. So basically im looking at it as maximizing what can be got from Slowey and that to me is pretty much a solid reliever to fill the spot in the pen he would take as a unproven unpracticed former starter who dosent really profile as someone who could be a strong reliever.
by holymackerel on Mar 10, 2011 1:01 AM EST up reply actions
Why doesn't Slowey profile as a strong reliever?
Slowey’s got a solid K rate (much better than Guerrier, for one) and other peripherals – his main failing as a starter is that he doesn’t go deep into games, because he throws a ton of pitches and struggles the second and third times through the lineup. Both those weaknesses would be nullified in the bullpen.
Pitching relief makes pitchers’ stats better, thanks to better use of platoon advantage and the fact that they don’t have to face anyone twice. If Slowey was as much as an average starter, I don’t see any reason to think that he wouldn’t be a very good, if not excellent, reliever.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
I'd say he's better then
Hoey,Burnett,Slama,Manship. Capps and Nathan are clossers. Throw in a couple of Lefties and we’ve got a good bull-pen. With Gibson,Gut and Bullock comming up next year or so.
by b1 on Mar 10, 2011 8:03 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Twinkie Town
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
