2. Sandy Koufax could pitch to whatever he wanted to; he was so good that he wasn’t going to get hit anyway. The Twins staff, on the other hand, don’t have that luxury.

As is the state of the Twins now, no matter what strategy the pitchers employ it’s bound to fail as the big FA acquisition is 2 years of Kevin Correia 5mil/year–in the long run, subpar pitchers get subpar results no matter what the coaches tell them.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15884

“If everything breaks right, he’s Brad Radke. If a few things break right, he’s Rick Reed. If things just break, he’s Boof Bonser.”

The problem with this for the Twins has been that they’ve traditionally drafted low upside pitchers who don’t have the stuff to live in the strike zone.

You could say that, but it's really far more accurate to say that OF THE GUYS AVAILABLE they were a cost effective bridge to better guys. How much crap would Ryan have caught for spending $14m per year on Jackson or Santana to lead the staff on a 65 win team? He didn't spend the money on big free agents because the choices weren't great and the time wasn't right. God knows there's money to be spent, but on who?

But you know who else they went out and got? They drafted hard throwers, and they traded for hard throwers with high K rates. You casually dismiss that, but that's the future they're banking on, and stiffs like Corriea are just here to soak up innings until the kids emerge. It's ridiculous to imply the Twins like late winter sweepings like Pelfrey more than Meyer and May, or that the mob of has-beens is anything more than a fist full of lottery tickets as they try to drag the staff ERA below 5.00.

Anderson is just talking at spring training, saying how great everyone looks and how optimistic he is for the great progress they're expecting this season. It's high season for PR and ticket sales and he's talking up the team. Geez, relax on the Kremlinology

Fine. But actions speak louder than words.

Last year, their starters had the worst ERA, and among the worst strikeout rates in the league. Yes the problem is more that they were bad than just their pitching philosophy. But what did the Twins do about it? They went out and hired two pitchers who were below average in the National League, Correia and Pelfrey — not based on results, obviously, because they suck, but because they liked the way they pitch.

And how do they pitch? They both ranked among the lowest strikeout rates in the league.

Was that a problem? No, they are the kind of pitchers Anderson wants his young pitchers to emulate. Here’s what Anderson said about them (this is a direct quote from the article linked above:

“Watch (Kevin) Correia, he’ll attack the zone with 88, 89 (mph pitches), but he knows what he’s doing,” Anderson said. “(Mike) Pelfrey might attack the zone with 91, 92.”

The fact that the frequent strikes they threw were met with delight by batters did not keep the Twins from offering them more money than any other team would, and more than many pitchers who actually get people out. They attack the zone. They’re not afraid of contact, and neither are the Twins.

Was their low K rate a hint that their lack of success was likely to continue, especially once they started facing the DH? It was to virtually every single person who commented on Twinkietown or Twins Daily. But the Twins love the way they pitch, shockingly low strikeout rate and all. Results be damned, at least they don’t nibble. To me, it looks like the pitch to contact philosophy is alive and well.

This is a team that abhors the four-seam “rising” fastball, much preferring the two-seam sinker. They love pitchers like Nick Blackburn and Carlos Silva, who try to “keep the ball down” (whether it worked or not, at least their approach was correct), and they can’t stand pitchers like Scott Baker, Kyle Lohse, and Liriano, who try to strike people out instead of inducing grounders. Anderson constantly tried to change the way the pitch, to make them more like Blackburn and Silva.

As Craig quoted above, they actively discouraged Liriano from trying to strike people out. Call it what you want, but they called it “pitching to contact” for a reason.

Even last year, when they had two center fielders playing at once, running down fly balls in one of the toughest home run parks there is, and infielders who could fall over tying their shoes, they still wanted pitchers to try to induce ground balls instead of strike people out. Well, Baker and Liriano are gone, Pelfrey and Correia are in — and now Anderson says the Twins aren’t pitching to contact?

And for years, their draft philosophy was to not gamble on high upside power pitchers, but to go for control pitchers who knew how to pitch. They used to do okay when pitchers like Radke, Silva and Pavano produced league-low walk rates and decent team ERA’s. But last year, they bottomed out. And in response they drafted a passel of power arms with dubious control, and traded for two more. Most people found that a very encouraging sign.

But Anderson touting Pelfrey and Correia as guys the Twins sought out because they know how to pitch sends a mixed message.

You know what I would love to see? Pelfrey and Correia come out and dominate the American League, proving the Twins’ front office right and everyone else wrong. I would love that. To find out that the Twins scouts can see things no one else sees, and predict success where no one else can, would make the future seem bright indeed.

As Aaron Gleeman points out, their recent signings of Sidney Ponson, Ramon Ortiz, Livan Hernandez, and Jason Marquis don’t inspire much hope for Pelfrey and Correia. Most Twins fans expect to grit their teeth and wait it out till the young guns arrive. Until they Anderson can say whatever he wants, but actions speak louder than words.

It doesn’t mean throw it SO they can hit it.

It means throw it where they think they can hit it.

It means throw strikes.

It’s actually a pretty old tenet; Dave Duncan was the first to publicly coin the term back when he was working in Oakland. And former Oakland pitcher/current Washington Nationals pitching coach Steve McCatty has also defined his strategy as “pitching to contact”.

Now, “Pitching To Contact” as Duncan and McCatty have defined it is exactly the way that Rick Peterson did in the article referred to here, and the way that Sandy Koufax describes in another user’s post: It’s about attacking the strike zone, not trying to nibble away at the strike zone, and making the batters hit your pitch, as opposed to theirs.

So I can see how Peterson was misunderstood here, most likely by a fanbase that needs to blame anyone they can for their team’s pitching woes.

They

Just

Suck.

The real crux of the argument isn’t the semantically challenged “pitch to contact”, but value of strike one. Perhaps a revolution in the sabermetric world is emerging, you know one that is based on performance, and not smothered by hypotheses.

Umm… cough…

Hey Craig…

It sounds like Sandy is saying he became a good pitcher when he stopped going for the strikeouts and started pitching to what???… say it again???… “Pitching to Contact” or in otherwords allowing contact to take place with the pitched to a tough spot.

C’mon Craig, you’ve got to be able to start figuring this stuff out yourself. We, as readers can’t keep carrying you. You’re lack of the simplest understanding is starting to get heavy. We’re starting to have to see our chiropractors more and more because of you.

Pull yourself together man!

Don’t take 120 pitches and 3 hours to get through the fifth inning – don’t nibble, don’t try to strike everyone out.

In other words – don’t be Dice-K.

“Cripes, he hit the **** outta that one”
“Hey Gardy, can you make this trip to to the mound for me, I think my ACL is about to tear from all the work”
“I miss Carl Pohlad. He knew to keep my locker stocked with Jack Daniels.”