Re: Twins staff being able to teach the changeup. They had a perfect person to teach it to in Jim Hoey. 100 mph fastball with a changeup could have been devastating.

Re: LaRussa experiment: at the bottom of this article http://www.livewild.org/bb/pitchingstaff/index.html

Just as closers can be overvalued compared to other relievers based on their collection of meaningless saves–meaning that you can pick up undervalued relievers who just happen to have been used in the “wrong” innings–isn’t it possible there’s a similar Moneyball-type inefficiency to the market that could be exploited by picking up pitchers who arbitrarily have been used as relievers instead of starters, reducing their perceived value?

Certainly there are some college pitchers who have been used as relievers for a reason. Some might not be good enough to start. But what if they are, and just haven’t been? What if they have two good pitches now, but could be taught a third? How many young pitchers have mastered a changeup before they enter pro ball?

If the Twins think their coaching staff is especially good at teaching the changeup, which there is some evidence may be the case, why not pick up people with good velocity and control, but no changeup, and teach it to them? Velocity is the one thing you can’t teach (with control perhaps being a close second). But changeups can. Maybe one of these guys that looks one dimensional now will be a future Johan Santana.

There was at least one guy they drafted who the scouting reports say shouldn’t start because his mechanics are a mess and he’d instantly get injured. But for the rest of them, who knows. Maybe the Twins are pulling a Billy Beane here. Not likely, I admit, but it’s possible. And if worse comes to worst, at least they should get a decent bullpen out of it. Or as the above discussion suggests, a full game’s worth of short stints. Incidentally, someone always gets credited with a win anyway, so there would be plenty of W’s to go around, and maybe even some saves.

I like going for power arms instead of the standard control types the Twins have preferred. But a reliever can only be so valuable (Mariano Rivera aside.) And relievers are the easiest position to fill on the cheap on the free agent market.

I actually called in one Sunday morning back in the 90s to specifically address this issue. This was when Randy Johnson was coming back from the DL and was being used in middle relief. Johnson, of course was dominant in that role, including against the Twins. I made my case to Kelly: on a pitching poor team, why wouldn’t a team (at the time) like the Mariners use their best player and future HOFer in the high-leverage, middle-inning lock down the win (3-4 ininngs situations, say 5-6 times per two weeks, virtually assuring wins in almost 35-45% your games? This instead of having your best pitcher only being involved in 20% of your potential wins.

To my surprise, Kelly thought it was a great idea, but it would get nixed by the agents and upper management who would both never agree to try it out, both sides would have too much to lose.

Only agents can screw this up by telling their HS or college guy to not sign with the Twins. But for the right guys, fireballing middle relievers, the Twins (or whatever team does this) would be a great fit for the beginning of their careers. Then they can move on to the big closer $ somewhere else after they’ve made a name for themselves.

Think about the pitchers who turned down offers from the Rockies because they didn’t want Coors Field tainting their statistics, and thus their ability to sign large contracts later in their careers (and their HoF chances, I guess). Would the Twins run into difficulty convincing the most talented guys in that pack of relievers that there will be no consistent wins and saves for their agents to brag about when negotiating their next contract?

Just kidding.