Again with the bunting...

I like Ron Gardenhire as a manager, I really do.

For starters, he seems to carry with him the immeasurable intangible of keeping his team motivated and focused over the long-haul of a 162-game schedule. After the announcement of his recognition of AL Manager of the Year but before the state’s dedicated Ron Gardenhire Day, Jim Thome offered this regarding the Twins skipper:

"I think he's done a great job of handling his players, and I think to be a good manager, that's key. You have to know each personality, and he does that. I think he knows everybody from top to bottom, and he does a great job with the on-field stuff, too. ... I've had good ones, and he's right up there, definitely, at the top of the list. It's definitely been a pleasure to play for him, that's for sure."

He sticks up for his players, both on the field and to the press. Over the course of his tenure with the Twins, Gardenhire has led the team to 803 victories, outperforming their Pythagorean wins estimate by 21 games in nine years. In fact, Gardenhire’s teams have underperformed their Pythagorean record only three times since his promotion and even then, each season it has been a difference of one win. Perhaps cultivating this type of clubhouse environment is the reason for doing better than the projections suggest they should.  

For that, he should win the Manager of the Year.

Plus the fact that he seems to share the same eating habits as Parks & Rec’s Ron Swanson. You have to respect that.

Still, if there is one thing that irks me about the manager - albeit a small, insignificant issue for me – is his stubborn insistence of maintaining a pre-1990s lineup construction mentality.

In a recent interview with the Pioneer Press’s John Shipley, the beat writer inquired what the manager would do with his lineup if neither Tsuyoshi Nishioka nor Alexi Casilla is capable of handling the number two spot in the order – would Gardenhire be so bold as to move Joe Mauer to that spot?

Gardenhire’s response was:

“Everybody talks about that, and yeah, I would. In fact, I have, and it wasn't the greatest.”

Now, the scale of judgment on what represents greatness may be up for discussion, however, it’s hard not to deduce that Mauer’s time in the No. 2 spot has been anything but the greatest.

The authors of The Book: Playing The Percentages in Baseball – Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman and Andrew Dophin – found that the optimal two-hitter was someone who was a high-OBP guy and that the No. 2 hitter came up to bat in situations as important as the No. 3 hitter, only more often throughout a season.

For his entire career, Mauer has assumed the second position 284 times – the bulk of which happened in 2009 the year in which the two-spot was a nightmarish, revolving door of misfits. In his limited capacity of batting second, Mauer hit .398/.451/.707 in 142 plate appearances. He drove in 28 runs while scoring another 29 on his own in 33 games. Additionally, he did not ground into a single double-play in that time.

Gardy continued to say that:

“You got to understand, the No. 2 batter gives himself up all the time. If the leadoff hitter is on, we want him to hit a grounder to second and move the guy over. How many times do you want Joe walking to the plate expected to get the guy over? It happens; it's part of the game. But the second hitter is a bunt guy, really.”

I’ve got several problems with that statement. The first of which being Gardy’s testament that the ideal No. 2 batter should be “giving himself up all the time.”

In the TwinsCentric 2009 Offseason GM Handbook and after the Twins signed Orlando Hudson last February I lamented the importance of having a strong offensive presence in the two-spot and NOT give yourself up. Once again to explain the significance of having a strong offensive presence batting second, I’m going to borrow from the write-up:

“In 1986, Bill James constructed a poignant analysis on lineup composition and revealed that the total runs scored and second spot in the batting order had the strongest correlation among any player in the lineup -- more than leadoff, third or cleanup.  Mr. James noted in his 1986 Baseball Abstract that ‘many managers tend to waste the second spot in the order by putting somebody there who isn’t one of the better hitters on the team...Too many managers will say ‘bat control’ as if these words were a magic wand, and place some .260 hitter with a secondary average of .150 batting second…’

 What Mr. James was trying to convey was that a sizable portion of baseball managers were submitting lineups that 1) had an excellent on-base oriented leadoff hitter, followed by a guy that 2) would slap the ball the other way or lay down a bunt thereby advancing the runner but surrendering an out, followed by 3) the team’s best hitter. Conceding the out was not advantageous for an offense. His solution to create an optimal lineup, one would want to enlist as many hitters in a row that avoid making outs – regardless of the out’s so-called productivity.” 

Bottom-line: Let’s not give away outs, it’s bad for business.

Secondly, moving the runner over is well-and-good, however, it’s better to put TWO runners on-base for the No. 3 and No. 4 hitters. Clearly, as a .327 hitter with a robust .407 on-base percentage, Mauer would do just fine getting on base as well as moving the lead-off hitter around the bases. In fact, it’s more likely that Mauer would do better under these conditions than some of the other options. When Mauer pulled the ball last year, he pulled it on the ground 79% of the time last year. With an opening between first base (since the first baseman would be holding the runner) and the second baseman inching over towards second to play for the double-play, Mauer should be given a larger target toward right to shoot a ball through.  

Critics of Mauer’s shift to the two spot would suggest that he would be set-up for more opportunities to ground into a double-play. This, too, is simply untrue.

Once again, research by The Book found that the No. 2 hitter comes to the plate in a double-play situation .09 times a game. Conversely, the No. 3 hitter hits under a double-play situation .18 times a game – nearly twice that of a No. 2 hitter. Extrapolating this over the course of a 162-game schedule, the No. 2 spot comes to bat an average of 14.58 times with a double-play in order. Meanwhile, the No. 3 hitter comes up 29.16 times over the course of a season. Again, while the difference may be negligible, but the decision to use a groundball-oriented hitter in the No. 3 spot (Mauer’s 49.5% career groundball rate) may be worth at least a win in the overall record.

The underlying message from Gardenhire was that he wanted more “team speed” this offseason, but what he may have been requesting was someone who was more skilled at bunting. Hudson’s strong OBP history and little record of dropping down sacrifices in his nine year career combined with leadoff Denard Span’s decrease in OBP left Gardenhire without bunter or bunt situations. Because of this, his team executed only 38 sacrifices all season – his No. 2 hitter laid down 10 of those. The previous season, the one with misfits and Mauer, the No. 2 spot dropped five bunts. Prior to that, an Alexi Casilla-led assortment of No. 2 hitters sacrificed 20 times in 2008. In my opinion, Gardy’s need for speed is also a euphemism for getting back to that ’08 type of play that.   

Although, he may fit the new two-hitter philosophy, I can concede that Mauer may not be the right choice to bat second. After all, having Orlando Hudson there last year added depth to the lineup and gave the Twins a strong offensive presence for five out of the six months (hitting .284/.358/.402 from April through August). Still, if the difference is having Mauer bat second versus insert a bunt-happy, groundball machine directed to record an out in the sake of “advancing the runner” – I’m taking Joe all day, every day.  

Again, lineup construction can wind up being a minor contribution – maybe costing or benefiting the team a win or three overall – yet for a team that has to play within the margins of what could be a very competitive run against the Chicago White Sox and Detroit Tigers, that win or three could be very significant this year. 

Reason for concern over Baker's setback?

As I mentioned yesterday, Scott Baker reportedly experienced some setbacks in his rehabilitation after his offseason elbow “clean-up”. While on with Sid Hartman and Mike Max this past Sunday, Ron Gardenhire included that nugget in his diatribe regarding why he doesn’t believe the Twins are looking to trade Francisco Liriano. To me, this seemed like a fairly noteworthy news tidbit yet nothing was covered in the press on Monday.

Thankfully, MLB.com’s Kelly Thesier provided an update on the extent of Baker’s situation by mid-afternoon:

“The right-hander said that it was right after TwinsFest, which took place Jan. 28-30, when he realized that perhaps he was going a little too fast with his preparation for Spring Training. Baker stressed that what he felt in his elbow after throwing a couple bullpen sessions was nothing like what he felt last season, when he needed two cortisone shots in the second half to continue to pitch. He was assured by the trainers and doctors that the discomfort he was feeling is not uncommon following surgery and Baker said he's not concerned about his elbow heading into the start of camp.”

Any sort of discomfort is disconcerting – for pitchers going through rehab, no news is good news. Likewise, this close to spring training it is strikingly reminiscent of the plight of Joe Nathan in 2010.

After the 2009 season, Nathan opted to have surgery to remove bone chips in his elbow.  This past season, after some nagging injuries with his elbow, Baker decided to have surgery to remove bone spurs. Essentially, bone spurs are simply bone chips that have not fully broken off from the source yet. As I discuss last March when news regarding Nathan’s need for Tommy John broke, bone chips/bone spurs are sometimes generated by a loose UCL (the ligament that snaps and requires the TJ) and an early indicator that something is not sound within the elbow structure.  

In both cases, Twins GM Bill Smith regarded both surgeries as “clean-up”. Nathan’s, of course, parlayed into something much more significant than a simple “clean-up”.

In his rehabilitation process in the next spring, Nathan began to have issues that were initially written off a common for someone going through the same process. Following an incident in the first week of March in which he said he was experiencing pain and was being sent back to the Twin Cities for a closer inspection, Nathan relayed this to the media:

"They said with this type of operation, you're going to have days where it's not going to feel great. There's going to be tightness in there, achiness in there, and it may be scary.”  

That’s basically the exact same thing Baker was told, only in different words.

Aside from Nathan, numerous other pitchers who have had bone spurs removed often run into the dreaded Tommy John or some other UCL repair shortly thereafter:

• In July 2007, Oriole closer Chris Ray was placed on the 15-day DL with bone spurs. Not long after that, Ray had surgery to remove the spur and Dr James Andrews noticed a minor tear in his UCL and repaired it. The following month with pain still continuing, Ray decided to undergo Tommy John surgery.
• In the same year, Cardinals’ ace, Chris Carpenter encountered arm pain that was sourced to bone spurs in his elbow in April. In May, Carpenter had those spurs removed. Two months later, Carpenter underwent Tommy John.
• In September 2008, reliever David Riske had some bone spurs removed from his elbow. The following April, Riske landed on the 60-day DL and needed Tommy John that June.
• In 2009, it was discovered that JJ Putz had bone spurs and had them removed in June. During his rehab, an MRI revealed further damage to his UCL and necessitated him sitting out the remainder of the season.
• The same year, Rockies reliever Manny Corpas was diagnosed with bone spurs and had them removed in July. In August 2010, Corpas once again hit the DL, this time requiring Tommy John.

And the list goes on.

In my opinion, Baker may be the key to having a successful year out of the rotation. With Liriano scheduled to be the number one guy and Carl Pavano as the innings-eating complement, Baker’s got the necessary skill set to be a number two starter. In the past three seasons, his high strikeout-low walk rates have led to an outstanding 3.39 K/BB (11th-best among active pitchers). His downfall had been his high flyball tendencies (45.6% fly ball%, third-highest in that time) which resulted in plenty of home runs (71 to be exact since the beginning of ’08). Fortunately, the Twins have built a ballpark that plays to his strengths (minus the outfield personnel to cover the ground, but still…) and Baker performed admirably there – posting a 3.86 ERA in the local confines.

Blessed with above average stuff, we can see how the influences of these types of lingering injuries can affect his pitching, so if he’s healthy, Baker is plenty capable of being a 15-game winner on the staff (provided the prerequisite defense and run-support). Now, it seems to be a wait-and-see game with Baker. Hopefully, the decision to ease up on the throttle will prevent any major damage to his elbow and winding up following the same path as Joe Nathan did. 

OtB Twins Notes

Ron Gardenhire told Sid Hartman and Mike Max on WCCO on Sunday that Scott Baker experienced a setback in his rehab stint following his off-season elbow surgery.

With five spots for six pitchers and now one shrouded with questions, this may have sealed the fact that no one is getting moved this off-season. Earlier in the interview, Gardenhire also somewhat dismissed Joe Christensen’s story regarding a potential trade of Liriano – insinuating that the source was not GM Bill Smith and that Smith had no intentions of moving the lefty in the near future.

While the extent of the setback is unknown, the manager said Baker’s unlikely to go full speed, at least not at the beginning of spring training. It is unfortunate for the Twins if Baker cannot enter the season at full strength as he is arguably the second-best arm in the rotation when healthy.

The Pioneer Press’s John Shipley also caught up with Gardenhire who indicated that Alexi Casilla is not necessarily a shoe-in for a starting job in 2011.

The manager made it clear that Tsuyoshi Nishioka will indeed be a fixture in the middle of the infield next season but left it open-ended when asked about Casilla’s role. Said Gardy:

“We'll let Lexi get out there and see what happens. I have other kids I want to see, too, like (Trevor) Plouffe and (Luke) Hughes — we haven't seen him much, but all indications are he can play. So we have people coming in who can play some roles for us, and I'm not by any means tied into anything. I'm hoping Lexi gets it done with Nishi, but I'll look at all the kids. Nothing is a given. I'll put the best team out there I can.”

There has been plenty of apprehension surrounding Casilla’s capabilities. He’s produced respectable numbers in his minor league career but hasn’t sustained that at the major league level, often seeming a bit overwhelmed and taking that on to the field with him. In his limited capacity last season, he appeared to be much more in tuned.

It’s hard to imagine Gardenhire spending the winter extolling the virtues of adding speed to his lineup then choosing Plouffe or Hughes over Casilla. If he is able to impress this spring, Casilla could give the Twins additional quickness in the infield and a legitimate base-stealing threat – one who is 34-for-39 on his career.

According to one of John Bonnes’s sources, the Twins had pursued reliever Hideki Okajima before the Red Sox re-signed the left-hander to a one-year, $1.75 million dollar contract with $550,000 in potential performance bonuses.

In December, I urged the Twins to consider the Orioles Keji Uehera as a bullpen arm in order to help Tsuyoshi Nishioka’s transition into America go a little more smoothly with a fellow countryman on the roster. Uehera, who enjoyed his stay in Baltimore, eventually re-signed with the Orioles for a one-year, $3 million deal that includes a vesting option for 2012.

The alternative to Uehera was the other Japanese relief free agent, Hideki Okajima.

Okajima was coming off a down year with the Red Sox, one in which he reportedly described as feelings of complete loneliness and isolation with the team compounding that was his on-field struggles – finishing the year with a 4.50 ERA in 43 innings.  Okajima’s performance against lefties slipped considerably in 2010 and he lacked command of the zone that he showed in his prior years. Because of this, his stock plummeted and the Red Sox were able to convince him to stay in Boston at a million dollar discount.

If able to rebound to his previous numbers, the 35-year-old Okajima would have been a valuable complement to Jose Mijares in the bullpen.
Also, in a somewhat related story, the Twins recently hired Okajima’s translator from last year, Ryo Shinkawa, to be Nishioka’s translator for the 2011 season. In addition to working as a translator for the Red Sox, Shinkawa also did some writing at NPBTracker.com, becoming yet another blogger (a well-educated, well-trained one at that) to work for a major league team.

Fox Sport’s Ken Rosenthal reports that the Twins are not looking at Chad Durbin for relief help.

Since 2008, Durbin’s .204 batting average allowed against right-handers is the 12th-best among relievers. While he’s pretty adept at striking out his same-sided brethren, he’s also successful at avoiding hard contact too. His 16% line drive rate against righties is one of the lowest in the league over that same period of time. From that perspective, he may have been a decent target – especially at a low cost.

Charley Walters says that the Twins will likely keep their three center field prospects - Ben Revere, Joe Benson and Aaron Hicks – at three different levels to start the season.

That sounds about right.

With three very good outfield prospects, the Twins are fortunate in this respect.  With Michael Cuddyer and Jason Kubel free agents at the end of the 2011 season, it’s likely that one of the three will emerge as a starter in the outfield in 2012. With a taste of the bigs last year, Revere is the most likely candidate to wind up with the club as a starter in ’12 yet he could use the additional seasoning.

Revere’s season at the double-A level demonstrated once again that he’s got little in the clout department, slugging just .363, but maintained a very good average (.305) and an even more impressive on-base percentage (.371). With his speed, he could eventually develop into a solid base-stealer, one that could turn those singles into doubles by swiping the next base, but for now, he’s exercising a borderline success rate (73% in 2010). Likewise, although his speed is definitely an asset in the outfield, his arm is a concern – to the point where it will probably evict him from center. According to La Velle E Neal, the Twins were having Revere “redistribute his muscles” attempting to have him avoid further bulking up his upper body which some think effects his throwing. You can’t help but lust after that on-base percentage and speed in the outfield (something that has been severely lacking with the Twins), but Revere isn’t quite ready to contribute at the major league level, at least not anything beyond an occasional defensive replacement and Jim Thome’s personal pinch runner. Staying at Rochester in 2011 will help him hone his base-stealing acumen and see if the personal training hired to de-bulkify him actually improves his arm.         

Always a low-average, high strikeout hitter, Joe Benson displayed good secondary skills including above-average power and a decent ability to coax a walk, however, he’s continually been hampered by injuries. This past season, his slow start at double-A got him demoted back to Ft Myers in efforts to improve his contact rate and work on his ability to handle breaking pitches before being sent back up to New Britain. While the strikeout rate remained consistent, when he made contact, Benson showcased some outstanding power, hammering 23 home runs in double-A and finishing the year with an 881 OPS as a 22-year-old. In addition to great foot speed, Benson is also a right-handed hitter who has a strong track record against left-handed pitchers. Given his struggles early on last year and the Twins insistence he improve his contact rate, starting him at New Britain again in 2011 is a good idea.

Of the three, the switch-hitting Aaron Hicks is probably has the highest ceiling of the three but the furthest to go climbing the ladder. Hicks is often on top of most analysts’ prospect list for the Twins and turned in a fairly respectable 2010 season in the Midwest League, hitting .279/.401/.428 in 518 plate appearances as a 20 year old in his second tour of duty with Beloit. From the right-side of the plate, Hicks crushed left-handers to the tune of .362/.449/.664 with six of his nine home runs in 116 at-bats. He struggled some from the left-handed box, losing a lot of pop when facing righties, hitting just .248/.383/.339 in 307 at-bats. Undoubtedly, the Twins would like to see him curb his strikeout rate which jumped to 21% in 2010, but this will be a challenge if he begins the 2011 in the notoriously pitcher-friendly Florida State League.  

If all three advance to the major-league level, it could be one athletic outfield. However, with Denard Span signed through 2015, it’s not difficult to reach the conclusion that one of the three is probably going to wind up a trade candidate when/if the teams needs additional support in other positions. 

What role should Duensing have in '11?

Assuming the Twins correctly decide to keep Francisco Liriano in a Twins uniform, the biggest story line this spring will be how the team opts to fill five rotation spots with six pitchers.

Liriano and Carl Pavano have earned themselves the number one and number two spots while the size of Scott Baker and Nick Blackburn’s contracts may have provided them even chance to blow a spot in the rotation this spring. Baker has the skill set to be a very good starting pitcher while Blackburn proved late in the year that he is still capable of being a groundball-oriented workhorse the team thought they had when they extended him. Barring injury, ineffectiveness or a trade, the final spot in the rotation comes down to either Kevin Slowey or Brian Duensing. By the virtues of his 7-2 record along with a 3.05 ERA as a starter, not to mention being anointed a playoff starter, many have begun to reserve a spot in next season’s rotation for Duensing.

From his perspective, Duensing told 1500ESPN’s Joe Anderson and Phil Mackey that he wanted to enter the spring preparing for that starter role:

 “Mentally, I’m heading in there as a starter. I feel like it would be easier for me to prepare to start and then get moved to the bullpen as opposed to get prepared to be in a relief role then happen to regroup and need to work longer innings.”

For his own sake, the Twins need to make a decision on what to do with Duensing. Last season, he was pushed-and-pulled around from the relief staff to the rotation, providing the Twins with outstanding numbers in both capacities. However, he appeared spent in his final few starts having amassed a higher pitch total than his body was ready for. Is he best suited to be a starter or do his skills match that of a reliever? What role would be better for him in 2011?

Without question, Duensing brandishes a fairly strong arsenal. In fact, his slider had some of the greatest success among all of the game’s best slider-throwers. Whereas Liriano paced the league in terms of pitch value – producing a slider that was 19.0 runs above average – Duensing wasn’t that far behind. His slide piece was valued at 14.3 runs above average, 10th-best in baseball.

Because of this pitch, Duensing absolutely dominated left-handed opponents. With a minimum of 500 pitches thrown, Duensing’s .162 batting average when facing lefties was the second-lowest among southpawed starters – trailing only Texas’s CJ Wilson (.144) in that split last year. Of course, while this pitch worked well against his sinister brethren, it didn’t have the same effect on his right-handed counterparts, nor did his overall repertoire:

	OPS	Chase%	Miss%	K%	xFIP
Vs. LHB	457	32%	28%	22%	3.25
Vs. RHB	751	27%	14%	12%	4.51

(via MyInsideEdge.com & Fangraphs.com)

Despite this discrepancy, and the fact that right-handed were responsible for 10 of his 11 home runs allowed, Duensing got decent results nonetheless. Part of his success was based inciting a high number of groundballs – off both left-handed and right-handed bats – while keeping hitters from teeing up line drives.

So Duensing is what appears to be the proverbial “pitcher” rather than “thrower”. On the surface, he appears to be the kind of hurler who hits his spots, mixes up velocity and gets hitters to hit less-than-choice pitches. It’s hard to argue with his past success but does this mean that he can sustain these results going forward?

To answer that, we must acknowledge that his 2010 was very fortuitous is a lot of respects too.

Although Duensing was able to increase the amount of groundballs – jumping from 45.5% in ’09 to 52.9% last year – he had the good fortune of having a high number of those rollers and bouncers hit at his fielders. Whereas the rest of the league’s pitchers averaged a .235 BABIP on grounders, Duensing had a very low .203 BABIP – which deviated significantly from his .287mark in his 2009 tour of duty. Even if he replicates the over 50% groundball rate in 2011, I suspect we will see more hits bleed through the infield.

Likewise, while the rest of the league’s pitchers typically maintain an average of 72% of the total base runners they keep from scoring, Duensing held an amazing 81.6% of base-runners at bay – the third-highest among those with a minimum of 120 innings pitched last season. This is a statistic that tends to fluctuate at various levels but ultimately regresses back to a player’s mean. Strikeout-oriented pitchers tend to have a higher strand rate in their career based on their ability to keep hitters from putting the ball into play thereby avoiding sacrifice flies or groundballs to advance runners home. Duensing is far from a strikeout artist – better at getting lefties to whiff versus righties – so it isn’t a stretch to suggest that a few more runners will cross the plate on him in 2011.  Also, given that this hefty 2010 feat pales his previous seasons’ rates dating back to 2006 it’s safe to say that Duensing will likely not be as blessed when it comes to stranding runners in the near future.

Then there is the concern of facing more right-handed hitters in 2011 if moved to the rotation. While as a reliever, Ron Gardenhire could cherry pick innings in which Duensing would be prone to facing a higher percentage of same-sided opponents. Upon converting to a starter, opposing managers were provided the opportunity to counter by loading their lineups with righties. Nowhere did this factor play a bigger role than in Game 3 during the ALDS. The Yankees filled their lineup to the brim with right-handers, leaving only Curtis Granderson and Brett Gardner as the lone lefties in the order. Duensing was cuffed around for four runs and was removed in the fourth inning, not having enticed one swing-and-miss in 58 pitches.

Lastly, Duensing’s difference from his ERA (2.62) to his FIP (3.85) was -1.23, the fourth-highest differential among those with a minimum of 120 innings pitched. Why is this important? ERA is like a measure to a pitcher like trying to find gold with a steam shovel is: you will find some of the important stuff but you will also drag along a lot of crap with it. Like good or bad defenses behind you. FIP on the other hand, is the equivalent to using a pan and sifting for gold, you get less of the other stuff that murky the findings. While not always 100% accurate, FIP provides us with a more predictive base using data that a pitcher can control (strikeout, walk rates, home runs). Admittedly, Duensing’s FIP was solid (more so than his xFIP) but still greatly exceeds his ERA suggesting that next season, his ERA will probably be more reflective of his FIP from this season.

Given these indications, it’s not difficult to reach the conclusion that Duensing is likely to experience regression in 2011; the real question is how much will his numbers slide?

Again, because he is able to keep hitters from lacing pitches across the yard and extremely tough on lefties, he might not be a candidate to regress as hard as some would suggest based on his ERA-FIP differential would lead us to believe. After all, there are some pitchers who simply out perform their FIP in spite of high contact rates. Even so, he’s clearly a regression case when you add in the other indicators.

In order to set him up for success, the Twins should use Duensing out of the bullpen. This would limit his match-ups against right-handed foes and allow him to lean more on his slider, a pitch that he has shown success with. 

More on the Twins' logic with Liriano

On Monday, Nick Nelson and I wrote two different stances on the Twins decision to continue forward with Francisco Liriano on a year-to-year basis. Nick expounded the virtues of striking a long-term deal now as the Twins are seemingly in a position to leverage Liriano into a team-friendly contract while I believed the Twins are vindicated in their decision to remain on a flexible year-to-year basis based on Liriano’s injury history and potential for more damage. To be frank, I feel that both arguments are valid ones as I would have endorse a decision for the Twins to be aggressive with Liriano future despite his injurious tendencies.

Regardless of what your perspective is on the issue, whether the Twins are in the right to go year-to-year based on his risk factor or if you feel they are foolish to pass on the opportunity to buy low on Liriano, here is some insight as to how the Twins approach these types of deals. Last spring, I had the pleasure of sitting down with the team’s assistant GM, Rob Antony, who discusses various aspects of the team’s interworking, including how they approach long-term contracts. When asked about the then recent Nick Blackburn signing, here is what Antony said:

“With Blackburn we looked at him and his body of work over two seasons. He averaged 200 innings, been a .500 pitcher both years and his ERA has been 4.02 or 4.05 or something like that. You look at him and then say okay, if he does that for the next three or four years, what would he make each year? Now it becomes a business decision of if you go year-to-year, what would he stand to make in arbitration next year and if he backed that up where would he go the next year? You start putting down the numbers and all the comps that he has and you base it off of if he just does what he has done.  You don’t project that he is getting better – although we believe there is more in there. Instead of being an 11-11 guy, we believe he could easily be a 15-9 guy.

Then you take the numbers part, compare him to other players and compare what they got in arbitration. You consider what your exposure would be if you did go year-to-year with this guy. That way you limit your risk of injury if you go year-to-year. Heck, you can non-tender him if he gets injured. We looked at it and we ended up signing him to a $14 million deal. We looked at it, his comps, and what he can do and realized he would get more than that.

The other part is that we have our own checklist. That includes durability, health, makeup, does he deserve it. How is he going to handle security? There are some players that you just don’t believe that are going to keep driving to get better. They just settle in.  Fortunately we haven’t had too many of those. So we’ve done a pretty good job of evaluating who the guys are.”

The Twins approach to Blackburn provides us with some understanding of why they reached the conclusion to go year-to-year with Liriano. For example, health seems to be a very big attribute for them. He listed both durability and health – neither of which Liriano has demonstrated throughout his career, majors or minors. This was the crux of my explanation for why the Twins are exercising caution with him rather than assuming the risk.

At the same time, Antony cites that determining to go year-to-year becomes a “business decision” which means they that Liriano’s earning potential in arbitration cannot be completely out of line as some people suggest it could grow to if he has a Cy Young-caliber season. However, Antony conceded that the Twins “don’t project that he is getting better”. This might be the biggest kink in the logic for going year-to-year. I think most agree that given his numbers from 2010, he’s very likely to either duplicate or surpass his conventional statistics provided a little bit more defense (he had a very high BABIP) and a bit more run support. If he performs above his 2010 level, which is extremely probable, the Twins’ estimates may wind up being skewed. The caveat, of course, is if he reinjures himself.

Then there is the vague reference to makeup. Truth be told, I am in no position to actually weigh in on Liriano’s makeup. I cannot say if his attitude in the clubhouse or among the brass is viewed favorably or unfavorably. What I do know is that he has done some things that may have irked some of the front office members. For instance, prior to deciding to undergo Tommy John surgery in November of 2006, Liriano was rehabbing in Fort Myers in October when he left unexpectedly and without notice of when he’ll return. Then there was the issue stemming from his agent’s insistence of filing a grievance against the Twins in mid-July 2009, suggesting that the team was intentionally holding him down in AAA to prolong his arbitration-eligibility (in hindsight, good tactic by the Twins). Of course, the Twins pardoned Liriano for his agent’s doings. Do these instances equal someone with bad makeup in the Twins’ eyes? I can’t say. All I know is that it happened.

Obviously, you can reach your own conclusions on what should have happened with Liriano this off-season. What we do know is the Twins opted to go on a year-by-year basis and I maintain the sentiment that they have valid reason to do so.