Twins Rotation...

[Hornsby]

Looks Blackburn is in...

Twins manager Ron Gardenhire said Nick Blackburn has earned a spot in the starting rotation, leaving two pitchers batting for the fifth spot -- Scott Baker and Kevin Slowey.

Blackburn pitched three perfect innings in Saturday's 6-1 victory over Tampa Bay.

"I'd say Blacky's in the rotation," Gardenhire said. "I like that sinkerball. If he's healthy, he's going at it pretty good. I like what we're seeing. He's one of my guys."

Blackburn went 10-12 with a 5.42 ERA last year and had arthroscopic surgery to remove loose particles from his right elbow. In his first start this spring, he threw two scoreless innings.

"This is probably the best I've felt in the last several springs, with knees and everything included," Blackburn said. "I'm finally getting out there to run a little bit. My legs feel stronger, which carries over to my delivery, too. My elbow feels great. I can't remember having as much freedom in my elbow as I've had."

Gardenhire hinted that he would like to make it a three-man battle for the final rotation spot, adding prospect Kyle Gibson to the mix. But the manager knows the front office will lean toward starting Gibson in the minors.

Slowey pitched three scoreless innings Friday in his second spring appearance. Baker, another righthander who had arthroscopic elbow surgery last October, is scheduled to make his second appearance Monday against St. Louis.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/117471138.html

[chancellor]

Wow...Baker or Slowey out of the rotation...amazing. Not that it's wrong, but man, that's real surprising.

[Big Tymer]

Wow...Baker or Slowey out of the rotation...amazing. Not that it's wrong, but man, that's real surprising.

Seems like a good buy low opportunity since can't imagine this doesn't work itself out over the season.

[Hornsby]

Wow...Baker or Slowey out of the rotation...amazing. Not that it's wrong, but man, that's real surprising.

Both guys have more talent than Blackburn, but they simply don't seem to have the desire that Gardy likes. He'd rather have a guy who'll go out there and battle his ass off, than a talent who seems to want out every time he gets a scratch.

[chancellor]

Both guys have more talent than Blackburn, but they simply don't seem to have the desire that Gardy likes. He'd rather have a guy who'll go out there and battle his ass off, than a talent who seems to want out every time he gets a scratch.

I've heard that about Baker, but is Slowey the same way?

[Hornsby]

I've heard that about Baker, but is Slowey the same way?

I think that Slowey is legitimately hurt, but it's happening too often for Gardy's tastes. OTOH, Blackburn fights through everything that happens to him, he'll try to pitch with a broken arm, if he could, and that gets the managers loyalty.

[mgwiz22]

I guess they'll bench that woos Morneau then.

[pjs24]

Wow...Baker or Slowey out of the rotation...amazing. Not that it's wrong, but man, that's real surprising.

No, it's wrong. As a Tigers fan, I LOVE it. As a fantasy analyst, I hate it. Blackburn... LOL. That's hilarious.

[pjs24]

I think that Slowey is legitimately hurt, but it's happening too often for Gardy's tastes. OTOH, Blackburn fights through everything that happens to him, he'll try to pitch with a broken arm, if he could, and that gets the managers loyalty.

I was talking with a Twins guy on Twitter and he feels the same way re: Slowey, that he is definitely hurt. I can understand starting BB over a hurt Slowey, but if it lasts even when Slowey's healthy, that's crazy to me. Blackburn is a mid-4.00s pitcher. Regression hit him hard last year for the 2 4.00 ERA seasons.

The problem is Baker and Slowey's results don't match their skills and it makes Blackburn look closer to them even though their skills are much better than his. Then you factor in the thing you say you about drive and desire and I see why BB got the nod.

[wannabegriffey]

2010 blackburn: 1 homer per 6 innings...195 hits in 161 innings...3.8 strike outs per 9 innings.

Ahead of Slowey and Baker? Wow...

[Erik]

2010 blackburn: 1 homer per 6 innings...195 hits in 161 innings...3.8 strike outs per 9 innings.

Ahead of Slowey and Baker? Wow...

Well, Paul hit it on the head. Slowey and Baker's results haven't been that much different from Blackburn's. Most managers aren't thinking about anything other than past results and attitude when making these kinds of decisions.

[Sour Masher]

I traded both Slowey and Baker on guaranteed deals a few weeks ago. I gave good keepers in both cases to get rid of them. A few owners thought I was foolish to do it at the time, but I'm feeling pretty good about it now. I fully understand everything about what makes Baker and Slowey attractive breakout candidates, but they may just be career underachievers. It happens. They have the talent to both have a good year this year, but I wanted know part of locking up keeper spots with them.

I think that as more roto/fantasy folks get more familiar with sabermetrics, there is the potential for the sleepers of years past, when people didn't know this stuff, to turn in to overvalued commodities. In my league, the pendulum has swung far enough now that guys who underperform the deeper numbers get bid up past the point I'm comfortable, and guys who seem to overperform, like Matt Cain, get undervalued a bit. If your league is filled with folks who put more faith in the new metrics than the old, it may be better to chase the anomolies who seem to defy the new indicators of future success, although even that well might dry up as I see folks like Shandler beginning to make exceptions for players who show a history of outperforming the indicators.

[pjs24]

I traded both Slowey and Baker on guaranteed deals a few weeks ago. I gave good keepers in both cases to get rid of them. A few owners thought I was foolish to do it at the time, but I'm feeling pretty good about it now. I fully understand everything about what makes Baker and Slowey attractive breakout candidates, but they may just be career underachievers. It happens. They have the talent to both have a good year this year, but I wanted know part of locking up keeper spots with them.

I think that as more roto/fantasy folks get more familiar with sabermetrics, there is the potential for the sleepers of years past, when people didn't know this stuff, to turn in to overvalued commodities. In my league, the pendulum has swung far enough now that guys who underperform the deeper numbers get bid up past the point I'm comfortable, and guys who seem to overperform, like Matt Cain, get undervalued a bit. If your league is filled with folks who put more faith in the new metrics than the old, it may be better to chase the anomolies who seem to defy the new indicators of future success, although even that well might dry up as I see folks like Shandler beginning to make exceptions for players who show a history of outperforming the indicators.

I don't love the Cain example in this instance. I don't think there is a ton of risk as it's not like he's just putting up surface stats with awful peripherals. He is still striking out 7+ per game and his FIP has been below 4.00 since 2006. His xFIPs are a bit higher, but I don't think he's greatly overperforming nor is he particularly undervalued, IMO.

[Sour Masher]

I don't love the Cain example in this instance. I don't think there is a ton of risk as it's not like he's just putting up surface stats with awful peripherals. He is still striking out 7+ per game and his FIP has been below 4.00 since 2006. His xFIPs are a bit higher, but I don't think he's greatly overperforming nor is he particularly undervalued, IMO.

Perhaps Cahill would be a better example. In most casual leagues, he'll end up overvalued because of his ERA and wins. However, in redraft leagues with a knowledge of the deeper numbers that show Cahill was very lucky and that he is likely to regress, I wonder if Cahill might end up undervalued as everyone wants to prove just how knowledgable they are by not bidding an extra buck on a regression poster boy. I'm not saying it is wise to chase regression candidates in most cases, but my league is so invested in FIP, xFIP, BABIP, K/BB, FB/GB etc, that there is a small potential profit for going after guys like this, who will likely regress, but may not regress as much as their underlying numbers suggest.

Edit: On second thought, maybe what I'm exploiting isn't a surface numbers/deep numbers thing. Maybe it is just a wariness for career year pitchers. What got me thinking of this is how I've often I've been able to get pitchers for less than their worth who were big regression candidates. I did this with Cliff Lee after his first big year. I got Joel Pineiro under value last year as well. There just seems to be a wariness in my league to be the guy who shows his ignorance by bidding up the player who had a career year, or had a year that seemed to be luck driven. This is the smart play, but it seems to go a little too far in some cases, or at least it has in my league where everyone wants to show everyone else that they aren't the sucker who will chase for last year's luck driven stats. Has anyone else noticed this? Or is the opposite generally true, because all it takes are two owners to chase up a fluke 17 win pitcher?