Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Article: The Myth of the 130-Inning Limit

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 IdahoPilgrim

IdahoPilgrim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,424 posts

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:16 PM

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.co...30-Inning-Limit

#2 greengoblinrulz

greengoblinrulz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:15 PM

Personally heard that Terry Ryan radio interviews this winter/spring where that number was given by Ryan....so

#3 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,954 posts

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:46 PM

Personally heard that Terry Ryan radio interviews this winter/spring where that number was given by Ryan....so


Unless you can produce the actual audio, it's just a myth...;):roll::P

#4 NoCal

NoCal

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 01:05 AM

A veritable Montaigne view of the Twins ........and life?

#5 raindog

raindog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 335 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 05:40 AM

Personally heard that Terry Ryan radio interviews this winter/spring where that number was given by Ryan....so


So...no one is saying that number wasn't given by Ryan. But TR also said in March that there is no firm number.

It would be nice if the Twins could come out and confirm what the current plan is. Or maybe they aren't sure yet. Either way, I think Walters made the decision to call up Gibson easy last night. Hope to see him soon.

#6 Chance

Chance

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 535 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 06:48 AM

Very nice read. Though I hope you're right, the twins have a hard time leaving a pitcher in once he reaches 100 pitches. It doesn't really matter how well they are pitching ( was that Slowey or Blackburn that they took out after 8 no-hit innings). My belief is that the twins believe in hard set numbers more then the rest of the league. They get caught up in what you mentioned above (the birth certificate reference). I'm not a Twins conspiracy guy, I don't believe that they are out to make us miserable, I just believe that they are the type of front office that would set a limit.

#7 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Let's Keep Winning!

  • Members
  • 5,986 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 23 June 2013 - 07:18 AM

Whether the number is firm or not doesn't really matter when it comes to discontent about not bringing him up.

While obviously problems could develop at any innings count, he is MORE likely to be shut down the more innings he gets. He is currently at 92.2 innings so, whether the innings limit is precisely 130 or has some flexibility, he is approaching a place where they are going to be watching his innings more and more closely. And are much more likely to shut him down.

130 innings may not be his ceiling but I'm not sure anybody guaranteed that he would get the full 130 either. Maybe they will shut him down at 120 or 125.

I had forgotten the following tweet from Rhett Bollinger (found again on RotoWorld) on May 20:

The Twins optioned left-hander Pedro Hernandez to Triple-A Rochester on Monday, which immediately led to speculation that Gibson could get the call. The 25-year-old right-hander has a 3.25 ERA and 46/14 K/BB ratio in 52 2/3 innings through eight starts this season in Triple-A. Even if the Twins opt for Walters or Deduno, it's just a matter of time before Gibson arrives. May 20 - 5:08 PM

Obviously "time" did not arrive within the following month since it is now June 23 and we've not caught sight of Gibson.

#8 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 13,240 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 07:54 AM

How can something be a myth if it was acknowledged by Ryan?

Perhaps a better title and suggestion would be: "The mysterious innings limit for Kyle Gibson". Ryan said there was a limit and gave a rough number. That may have changed and their may be reason to believe it has changed. He may even have just been giving a very cautious number publicly, but it is not (nor was it ever) a "myth". That's a backhanded way of discrediting people who are citing something the GM said on the issue.

I would think that sort of evidence is pretty strong, not made up or "mythic"

#9 Brandon

Brandon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,278 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:29 AM

I can see Gibson being allowed to go 150-160 innings as long as he looks strong. but I don't see him going much beyond that. They will want him to come back stronger next year and make sure they avoid a potential dead arm next year when he is up in Minn.

#10 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:49 AM

If they don't limit his innings, they are taking a huge, unnecessary risk. The science is well documented. They have a recent example of how this risk came back to bite them in Liriano. If they push it beyond 140, I would be shocked.

#11 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Cooperstown

  • Twins Mods
  • 9,861 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 09:49 AM

Ryan first said 130-140, then said the number wasn't firm. From my perspective, 130-140 is not a firm number and neither statement contradicted each other.

#12 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,504 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:58 AM

Thank you for this piece. I've been blasted by a few folks here who take every quip as the ultimate truth (even if there is contradicting evidence) while trying to make that point:
"One thing it would remind us of is how easy supposition can become “fact” through the process of repetition."

Really hoping we see Gibson come up for Walters. Not defending it and I hope not, but I could see them give PJ one more start since that was his first real clunker (I know he wasn't great in 2 other starts as well).

#13 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 10,491 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:55 AM

The tricky thing, at this point, if he really struggles, is it due to the recovery, and does he need to be shut down? Or is it just regular rookie adjustments?

#14 Craig Arko

Craig Arko

    Strange, new, worlds

  • Members
  • 7,124 posts
  • LocationEnceladus

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:06 AM

I guess we'll find out soon enough. I hope he gets through July and August before being shut down, and then maybe Worley or Hendriks takes over the spot in September.

#15 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 20,269 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:13 AM

We don't know what will happen, and maybe the Twins don't either. But I fail to see how quoting Ryan, when he says something, is wrong somehow. We only know a: what happened; b: what they say will happen. For the future, we can extrapolate from past behavior, and their words. Ryan said what he said, I don't see how repeating that somehow makes people bad/wrong/evil/not real fans.

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#16 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:18 AM

We don't know what will happen, and maybe the Twins don't either. But I fail to see how quoting Ryan, when he says something, is wrong somehow. We only know a: what happened; b: what they say will happen. For the future, we can extrapolate from past behavior, and their words. Ryan said what he said, I don't see how repeating that somehow makes people bad/wrong/evil/not real fans.


It doesn't.

#17 Craig Arko

Craig Arko

    Strange, new, worlds

  • Members
  • 7,124 posts
  • LocationEnceladus

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:22 AM

Yeah, although the distinction between extrapolation and speculative fiction should be kept in mind.

#18 SwainZag

SwainZag

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,617 posts
  • LocationMontana

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:32 AM

Very nice read. Though I hope you're right, the twins have a hard time leaving a pitcher in once he reaches 100 pitches. It doesn't really matter how well they are pitching ( was that Slowey or Blackburn that they took out after 8 no-hit innings). My belief is that the twins believe in hard set numbers more then the rest of the league. They get caught up in what you mentioned above (the birth certificate reference). I'm not a Twins conspiracy guy, I don't believe that they are out to make us miserable, I just believe that they are the type of front office that would set a limit.


In this day and age in baseball with such good bullpens and use of specialty guys, I have no problem when the starters are pulled after 100-110 pitches or so.

If you have an ace type pitcher I believe there should be a completely different mentality, but there is not one pitcher on this roster I would trust more going beyond 100-110 pitches than the bullpen arms the team currently has right now.

#19 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 13,240 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:33 AM

Yeah, although the distinction between extrapolation and speculative fiction should be kept in mind.


You're right, this blog is a good example of speculative fiction.

Not only is Ryan's quote evidence of an innings limit approaching - so is major league baseball conventional wisdom, the Twins general conservative approach to injuries, and standard injury rehab timelines.

Personally, I hope Ryan and his crew up that limit. The more Gibson, the better. But there was never a "myth", there was a very real expectation based on the vast majority of evidence. Not wild, hopeful speculation.

#20 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 13,240 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:01 PM

I thought I had raised a valid point - that there is just as much evidence for there not being a firm limit as there is for there being one. :)


Except that there isn't. As I noted in my last post, there is a vast preponderance of evidence that there is an innings limit from injury rehab times, conventional wisdom for handling this injury, the Twin's standard approach to injuries, etc.

You have one quote from Ryan that is even more vague than the one that favors an innings limit.

You may indeed be right, but you don't (as your article suggested and I take issue with) have anything beyond hopeful speculation. I share your hope, but not your confirmation of speculation as evidence.