Duensing-Blackburn-Pavano-Baker: Worst playoff rotation ever?

I ask this not to denigrate the Twins, who I really admire as an organization. I ask this because I genuinely can't think of a worse set of starting pitchers to get a team into the playoffs.

The 1980 Phillies had Carlton/Walk/Ruthven/Bystrom. And they won it all. Of course, the Twins don't even have a Carlton. Or a Ruthven.

The 1990 Pirates had Drabek/Walk (again!)/Smiley/Zane Smith. In the pivotal Game 7, they had to start Ted Power.

The 1995 Mariners had Johnson/Belcher/Wolcott/Benes/Bosio. Only the Unit had an ERA under 4.40 that year.

I'm sure the mid 90s Rangers had some ugly ERAs.

The 2005 Padres
Jake Peavy, and then Brian Lawrence, Woody Williams, and Adam Eaton.

And not one of the good season by Williams or Eaton.

Fangraphs post on this topic. It prompted me to respond as The 1975 Red Sox Rotation, but Seidman ignored me.

I remember during the '87 Series, the announcers always talking about how lousy the Twins pitching was. They had Blyleven and Viola up top, but Les Straker and Mike Smithson after that.

In the pivotal Game 7, they had to start Ted Power.

I can't find an article other than this one, which only mentions it in passing, but my recollection is that Leyland started Power with the intention of bringing in Zane Smith at the first sign of trouble. He was trying to screw up the Reds' platoons.

Not that it matters much, but FWIW it was game 6.

Fangraphs post on this topic. It prompted me to respond as The 1975 Red Sox Rotation, but Seidman ignored me.

We have our winner. 1995 Rockies - Kevin Ritz, Bill Swift, Lance Painter and a bad and brokedown Bret Saberhagen. Wow. Blake Street Bombers indeed.


I can't find an article other than this one, which only mentions it in passing, but my recollection is that Leyland started Power with the intention of bringing in Zane Smith at the first sign of trouble. He was trying to screw up the Reds' platoons.

Not that it matters much, but FWIW it was game 6.

Thanks, that makes more sense.

I take that back, the '98 Cubs were worse. Mark Clark (90 ERA+), Kevin Tapani (90), Kerry Wood (128). Had they needed a fourth starter, Steve Traschel (98) was waiting in the wings.

Why on earth are the Twins starting Pavano in Game Three over Baker?

Kerry Wood (128).

And Wood had missed all of September; his playoff start came with the arm injury that would later require Tommy John surgery. Of course, he still pitched pretty well.

ahem, 2004 Yankees:

Mussina, Lieber, Brown, El Duque

Why on earth are the Twins starting Pavano in Game Three over Baker?

The whole rotation is screwy. If they start Blackburn on short rest today (and he did fine on Saturday on short rest and I trust him way more than Duensing), then you can go to Pavano and Baker on normal rest on games 2 and 3. Just an odd decision all around.

Why would you start Pavano at all?

Deunsing tonight, Blackburn Friday, Baker Sunday, and then if Deunsing doesn't pitch well, Pavano in Game Four -- but Deunsing again if he pitches well (which he has done since moving to the rotation).

Pushing Baker back to ensure that you get Pavano in there is just silly.

I'm sure the mid 90s Rangers had some ugly ERAs.

Rangers 1996:
4.06 Burkett
3.63 Hill
4.66 Oliver
5.19 Witt

Rangers 1998:
4.41 Helling (20 wins!)
4.23 Sele (19 wins!)
4.33 Stottlemyre

Rangers 1999:
4.84 Helling
4.56 Loaiza
4.79 Sele

Not too bad...

We have our winner. 1995 Rockies - Kevin Ritz, Bill Swift, Lance Painter and a bad and brokedown Bret Saberhagen. Wow. Blake Street Bombers indeed.

ERA+ for those 4 guys in 1995: 128, 109, 124, 86.

That team had a good bullpen, and overall the staff was 2nd in the NL in ERA+.

Deunsing tonight, Blackburn Friday, Baker Sunday, and then if Deunsing doesn't pitch well, Pavano in Game Four -- but Deunsing again if he pitches well (which he has done since moving to the rotation).

Duensing will not pitch well tonight. His stats look good, but I think he's mostly beaten on the bad teams and teams that had given up. Gardy didn't want him to start at all...if they could have worked it out, he would have been in the pen with a 3 man rotation. Assuming that Duensing is the worst of the starters, then how much does it matter whether Pavano starts game 4 or Game 5?

Duensing will not pitch well tonight. His stats look good, but I think he's mostly beaten on the bad teams and teams that had given up. Gardy didn't want him to start at all...if they could have worked it out, he would have been in the pen with a 3 man rotation. Assuming that Duensing is the worst of the starters, then how much does it matter whether Pavano starts game 4 or Game 5?

3 of his nine starts were against the Rangers (in August when they were still in it) and Tigers. 2-1, 18 IP, 3.00 ERA, 12 K, 5 BB, 1 HR.

If Deunsing pitches well, you can't start him again if you're starting Pavano in Game Three. You obviously go to Baker in Game Four, and you obviously go to Blackburn in Game Five. If Deunsing pitches poorly, you can still use Pavano in his place.

It matters because starting Pavano in Game Three gives you fewer options.

Pavano has pitched well for the Twins and been around the block. Contrast that with the fact that Baker is Jekyll/Hyde and if the bad one shows up you gotta pull him quick, and Duensing has never been to Yankee stadium in his life, and you* see that having one guy who can probably go six or more is huge.

(* Edit: the organization feels this way. You may not.)

By the way, Pavano as mentor has been really a big deal around here. He's been really humble about it, actually saying things like "I had trouble with this and that in NY" and sharing a lot of the scars and bruises with the kids. The Twins rotation was young to start with, but with Slowey and Perkins and Liriano going out and Manship, Duensing, Swarzak, Mijares, Keppel and a bunch of other youngsters pulling real duty, it's been an important role.

Similar things were said about OC being a credible Spanish speaking voice of experience in the clubhouse. Watch when Mijares or Gabino is on the mound - he shows up for every catcher and coach visit. Casilla and Gomez have both raved about him, quoting OC when all he's doing is parroting stuff Gardenhire's been b*tching about in post-game interviews for weeks.

Anyway, young teams, particularly thsae with coaching staffs that do not change, need to find some way to reach the kids. I think the next time they need a new face on Gardy's staff they may look for a native Spanish speaker, but they really don't have one now. Did you know Rick Stelmaszek has been coaching at the major league level in MN for 29 years? There's stability and then there's this.

I think tonight's game with feature 27 runs and take 9 and a half hours to play.

Let's rate 'em!

Rank these famous folds, worst to first:

1908 Giants
'51 Dodgers
'62 Dodgers
'64 Phillies
'78 Red Sox
'04 Yankees
'07 Mets
'09 Tigers

The '95 Angels have to be pretty high on that list.

It matters because starting Pavano in Game Three gives you fewer options.

If "getting more starts for your worst starter" is an option worth pursuing, that is. Starting Pavano also means you have Duensing available as a reliever in games 4 & 5. He's more likely to be useful in that role than as a starter. Unfortunately it's him or starting someone on short rest.

We have our winner. 1995 Rockies - Kevin Ritz, Bill Swift, Lance Painter and a bad and brokedown Bret Saberhagen. Wow. Blake Street Bombers indeed.


ERA+ for those 4 guys in 1995: 128, 109, 124, 86.

That team had a good bullpen, and overall the staff was 2nd in the NL in ERA+.

The game two starter was Lance Painter, a reliever who had started one game all season. In his 33 games in 1995, he had pitched 45.1 innings, so it wasn't like starting Jim Konstanty or something, either.

If "getting more starts for your worst starter" is an option worth pursuing, that is. Starting Pavano also means you have Duensing available as a reliever in games 4 & 5. He's more likely to be useful in that role than as a starter. Unfortunately it's him or starting someone on short rest.

I don't see how Duensing is worse than Pavano. I don't see how Duensing is not head and shoulders above Pavano. Pavano is not good.

The '95 Angels have to be pretty high on that list.

Could add the '87 Jays, as well...

The '95 Angels have to be pretty high on that list

Yep. And there are also the '87 Tigers [EDIT: Jays, I mean. Tigers were the beneficiaries]. And '69 Cubs, who went from 9 up on Aug. 16 to 9 down on Oct. 1.

As for the other nominees, it sorta depends on whether you're looking for a weekslong fade ('51 Bums, '78 BoSox) or a choke at the wire.

And have we already forgotten the 2007 Padres?

Why would you start Pavano at all?

Because I trust him more than Duensing. Duensing just screams HIT THE #### OUT OF THIS PITCH every time he releases the ball.

I don't see how Duensing is worse than Pavano. I don't see how Duensing is not head and shoulders above Pavano. Pavano is not good.

You have a thing for Pavano, I get it. But in reality, he's not that bad. How about this (lifted from Gleeman this morning):

Brian Duensing 84 IP 5.7 SO/9 3.3 BB/9 45.5 GB% 4.97 xFIP
Carl Pavano 199 IP 6.6 SO/9 1.8 BB/9 44.5 GB% 4.24 xFIP

Duensing has pitched 84 innings total in his career and has gotten plenty lucky in order to look like a decent starter in an incredibly small sample. Good for him. But he's not that good.

Playoff Baseball is here!

Trivia question: How many Octobers are there?

Answer: One. There is only one October.

Why on earth are the Twins starting Pavano in Game Three over Baker?

Spite.

You have a thing for Pavano, I get it. But in reality, he's not that bad.

That's amazing how you're just totally missing the point.

The issue isn't that Deunsing should definitely start Game Four, it's that there's no way that he can start Game Four if Pavano starts Game Three. Your default assumption is that this guy who "got lucky" to be outstanding in 6 of his 9 starts could not POSSIBLY pitch well against the Yankees, certainly not better than Carl Pavano would!

Scenario A: (Pavano starts Game Three)
Deunsing pitches great tonight, totally holds the Yankees hitters in check. But he cannot start another game in the series. Gotta ensure that Pavano gets a start, you know. After all, he's "not that bad".

Scenario B: (Baker starts Game Three)
Deunsing pitches great tonight, totally holds the Yankees hitters in check. Gardenhire can now decide if he wants to start Deunsing or Pavano in Game Four.

Scenario C: (Pavano starts Game Three)
Deunsing pitches terribly tonight, gets knocked around the yard. Fortunately, it's his only start of the series, and the Twins didn't have much choice but to start him.

Scenario D: (Baker starts Game Three)
Deunsing pitches terribly tonight, gets knocked around the yard. Fortunately, the Twins don't have to start him again, and can turn to Pavano instead.

The Twins lose nothing by starting Baker in Game Three, and potentially lose much by starting Pavano in that game. I see no logical reason for the decision.

If Duensing pitches well enough to deserve to make another start in this series, he can pitch game five instead of Blackburn. If he is better than Pavano, he is also better than Blackburn. Neither of those are the case, mind you. The Twins pitchers, ranked from best to worst, are Baker, Pavano, Blackburn, then Duensing. One game of performing well won't change that..that's the ultimate small sample size. Arguing that Pavano shouldn't be expected to start at all in this series is incorrect, period.

If Duensing and Blackburn both pitch so well as to obviously deserve to pitch twice, then the result of the series will be an obvious Twins win and it won't matter who starts when, and they can save one of them to be ready to start game one of the second round, in whatever fantasy world that happens in.

White Sox pick up option on P Matt Thornton - good move

Astros pick up option on P Brian Moehler - bad Ed Wade, very bad

Astros pick up option on P Brian Moehler - bad Ed Wade, very bad
Be comforted, Astro fans, that there is a silver lining -- Ed Wade won't trade a C+ prospect for Moehler late in the 2010 season.

Brian Moehler lives to fight another day!

Earlier thread addressing the unlikeliness of Brian Moehler's career

I enjoy the "Appearances on Leader Boards, Awards, and Honors" section of his BB-ref page. He is 26th among active pitchers in shutouts, with 6 - that's something.

He is 26th among active pitchers in shutouts, with 6 - that's something.

22nd in losses among active pitchers. And a lot of the guys ahead of him will be retired next year.

And a lot of the guys ahead of him will be retired next year.

As far as I can tell, four of them (Glavine, Gordon, Trachsel and Loaiza) already are.

In 2000 he was ninth in the league in hits given up (222), fifth in the league in lowest BB/9IP (2.023), and eighth in the league in K/BB (2.575).

Active pitchers with similar career IP:

The Sporting News: Pittsburgh is best sports city

I'm fine with that, but some of the rankings are just baffling. Great Falls, Montana over Winoosky, Vermont??? Adelanto, California over Appleton, Wisconsin? And their bias towards Sioux Falls, South Dakota is pretty blatant.

Deunsing

U before E, except after C.

"Winoosky, Vermont" must be a veiled reference to Rimouski, Quebec.

On the TBS pre-game show panel Dennis Eckersley is the good-looking one.

WHY ISN'T EVERYONE FASCINATED BY BRIAN MOEHLER?

Okay, anyway: someone pointed out in the Game 163 thread last night that if Bobby Keppel, who came into the game when it was tied and left when it was tied, got the win, it would be his first major-league win. And that in fact happened. Congratulations Bobby Keppel! The strangeness of that game got even stranger.

Man, this Deunsing guy does suck!