"Resting" players

[Sssuperdave]

So I'll add another subjective thought to the mix. An earlier poster mentioned commentators talking about golfers being tired playing 36 holes, and I think it's actually a good parallel to my thoughts on baseball.

 

Hitting a golf ball and hitting a baseball at the highest levels are both highly technical, refined motions. 1 cm difference in bat/club path is literally the difference between a pop up and a home run in baseball, or between a solid drive and slice off the fairway in golf. I don't think any of the proponents for rest are suggesting that players "can't handle" playing every day. It's not like Kepler can no longer forcefully swing a bat on his 20th straight day playing. The question is, at what point do a players muscles start responding differently such that the bat/club path yields desired results less frequently? It has nothing to do with toughness, heart, grit, or anything like that, and everything to do with physics and anatomy, which probably varies by person. 

[ScrapTheNickname]

 

ESPN's page for 2018 is broken (can get AL data, but not MLB), but here is games played by player for 2017

 

38 played 155+ in 2017

53 played 155+ in 2016

 

This does not account for pinch hitting appearances, or getting pulled from a game early. It is just appearances. I'm not saying this to either support or refute your point, just providing the data (and source).

58 players in 2018 played in 150 or more games, thus, on average, 1.93 players per team played 150+ games.

 

In 1969, 52 players did it, with 24 teams, so, on average, 2.17 players per team played 150+ games.

 

Does this mean anything to anyone? It seems like in 50 years the numbers are pretty similar.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp?c_id=min#elem=%5Bobject+Object%5D&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&game_type='R'&season=2018&season_type=ANY&league_code='MLB'&sectionType=sp&statType=hitting&page=2&ts=1568657036949&playerType=ALL&sportCode='mlb'&split=&team_id=&active_sw=&position=&page_type=SortablePlayer&sortOrder='desc'&sortColumn=g&results=&perPage=50&timeframe=&last_x_days=&extended=0

[Brandon]

 

I recognize it was Bert & Jim Kaat talking but they both made the point on Berrios that putting him out on 3 days rest would have been more beneficial than giving him the extra day at 5 days rest going into the RedSox game. I do get the "recovery" metrics of today's game and won't argue the statistical merits but this is developing into a pattern for Jose. 2 seasons in a row now for him. On the outfield - ouch..I think everyone now wishes we still had Jaylin, and not Dyson. That may prove to hurt. Who'd have thought we'd be so far down the totem pole on outfielders in September.

I am pretty confident we won't miss Jaylin.  I am glad he gets an opportunity somewhere.  At best he gets 5-10 ABs here in this season and we never hear from him again because next year we will have Booker and Killeroff and Wade and Cave and our 3 current starters and .....  Granted I guess there is a pathway for Jaylin, but it is not as clear cut.  Dyson could provide good value for us next year.

[ScrapTheNickname]

Has this been brought up?

Weren't baseball players in the 50s and 60s (and maybe before) infamous for taking "greenies" or uppers to keep them artificially stimulated?

According to the New York Times, starting in 2006 MLB started testing for amphetimines.

Hall of Famer Mike Schmidt wrote in his book: "[Amphetamines] have been around the game forever. In my day, they widely available in major-league clubhouses."

[prouster]

I dont think managing injuries and resting players are related.

 

There's zero evidence resting players results in fewer future injuries.

I’m willing to bet there is evidence that teams don’t release to the public.

 

In lieu of that possible evidence, it’s simply basic logic to say in the aggregate, fewer innings played translates to fewer injuries. It’s such a bizarre thing to think otherwise.

[Linus]

I’m willing to bet there is evidence that teams don’t release to the public.

 

In lieu of that possible evidence, it’s simply basic logic to say in the aggregate, fewer innings played translates to fewer injuries. It’s such a bizarre thing to think otherwise.

I don’t think it’s bizarre. Resting them surely makes them feel better and probably play better but I don’t necessarily think it is directly linked to fewer injuries.

[twinbythebay]

 

I think a lot of the regular rest was to give the bench guys some pt here and there so as to be ready in case they might be needed. Can't sit those guys all year and expect them to be able to play well when someone goes down.

 

I think this is an excellent point, and i think it has been mostly overlooked in this thread. We can argue until the cows come home about whether the Twins' success this season is partially because of more well-rested players, or if they would be even more successful without the extra rest. It's very hard to prove one way or the other.

 

Either way, you're going to have to deal with injuries to a few of your starters throughout every season, and giving them regular rest comes with the benefit of giving more playing time to your bench players. I have felt way more confident in the Twins' bench this season compared to prior seasons, and part of that is because they're getting more playing time and gaining experience in important spots. If you're playing your starters every day all season long, and then one or two of your starters go down with an injury, you're forced to play some guys who have done little besides ride the bench and maybe take a couple of pinch hit plate appearances per week.

[stringer bell]

One factor in the "rest" argument is the construction of the 2019 Minnesota Twins. They have, not one, but two "bench" guys who pretty much demanded regular play because of history (Gonzalez) and this year's play (Adrianza). The step down from a regular to Gonzalez/Adrianza is perceived as pretty small, and I would argue that Adrianza at short and Gonzalez is left field or third base are defensive improvements over the regulars at those positions. 

 

On the 2019 Twins I don't see a guy who at 85-90% is decidedly better than the next guy on depth chart. It makes sense to me that all players get days off to heal the nicks when the club has a talented and versatile bench.

[Only Here in Negative]

Why in the world would anyone question the tactics that led to a potential 100-win season? Like how is this season some argument against resting guys? No one ever claimed that resting guys would prevent all injuries but the Twins have been one of the least-injured contenders, even with the injury-prone Buxton and Sano and a 38 year old Cruz.

 

I think its remarkable that people sitting at home watching on TV know the dynamics of the clubhouse and the individual health of players enough to know better than the guys talking to the players every day. I have not heard a single Twins player complain about the days off (even though more days off means more stats and potentially more money). This Twins clubhouse has had no issues that have made the media and every player seems happy to be playing the amount they're playing.

 

Do we really think Adrianza would have contributed so much if he wasn't playing regularly? Cave getting regular time due to resting and injuries led to that big August. Maybe Garver should play more but hard to argue with 30+ home runs.

 

Keep restin' the boys Rocco. Baseball is a long slog and they should know you have their back.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

58 players in 2018 played in 150 or more games, thus, on average, 1.93 players per team played 150+ games.

 

In 1969, 52 players did it, with 24 teams, so, on average, 2.17 players per team played 150+ games.

 

Does this mean anything to anyone? It seems like in 50 years the numbers are pretty similar.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp?c_id=min#elem=%5Bobject+Object%5D&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&game_type='R'&season=2018&season_type=ANY&league_code='MLB'&sectionType=sp&statType=hitting&page=2&ts=1568657036949&playerType=ALL&sportCode='mlb'&split=&team_id=&active_sw=&position=&page_type=SortablePlayer&sortOrder='desc'&sortColumn=g&results=&perPage=50&timeframe=&last_x_days=&extended=0

 

This is a great experiment but you'd need to expand it to get a larger sample. One year is too random. If you did this every year for the last 50 years, you'd get a pattern. If it really was 2.17 vs. 1.93, that's not a meaningless difference. That's about a 25% increase in the number of players playing 150. Its not the end of the world but it would show a drop.

 

Catcher might be an interesting place to look as well since that's the position where rest makes the most sense. Looking at catcher performance against league average compared to average games played would maybe provide some insight

 

[ashbury]

Why in the world would anyone question the tactics that led to a potential 100-win season?

It's fair to question everything. Except, maybe, the right to question everything.

 

I think its remarkable that people sitting at home watching on TV

Don't go there. You're not in the dugout, and neither am I nor anyone else. Just discuss the topic, not your fellow posters.

 

[Only Here in Negative]

 

 

I dont think managing injuries and resting players are related.

There's zero evidence resting players results in fewer future injuries.

 

1. There's also no direct evidence that resting players doesn't result in future injuries.

 

2. There's significant indirect evidence that it does. Kinetic sports science has hundreds of article and theories about the importance of rest to athletic performance, many focused on track athletes. Plus, in all professional sports, where business are betting money on team outcome, management is working to reduce playing time. Football doesn't run RBs 400 times anymore, basketball rests stars all the time, and hockey players increasingly get games off. That's not a direct study but with that much money on the line (and the potential to piss off the customer paying to watch), it's indicative that there is some evidence.

 

3. It also doesn't have to be about injury. Even if it doesn't reduce injuries, it may make players more effective when they have time off. Rocco is big on letting guys know days ahead of time when they'll get a rest, which speaks to the mental health aspect of it. Injury plays a role but I think the Twins (and other teams) also think that it helps guys if they have a light day every week or two.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

It's fair to question everything. Except, maybe, the right to question everything.

 

Don't go there. You're not in the dugout either.

 

Wasn't stifling free speech. But I think its acceptable to say "Why go down this path?"

 

And I'm not claiming to know better than the guys in the dugout. That's kind of my point. I'm saying trust the guys in the dugout. Management has access to such a vast amount of high quality information (statistical and experiential) that its rather shocking we don't trust them on something where our disagreement is based solely on conjecture. "Trust the guy in the dugout with access" is a perfectly rational response.

 

I feel the same way when people disagree with beat writers about the things they see and report on in the clubhouse (thinking the comments section of The Athletic on this one). The beat writer is there, you're watching the game on TV. I'm not saying we should swallow what they say as gospel (and if its Souhan we should ignore it!) but lets not pretend that we somehow know better because we played Legion Ball.

 

I think the anonymity of the internet brings this on. If one of us talked to Rocco face-to-face or had a chance to write him a letter he'd read, I don't think we'd be questioning this so harshly. We'd be more polite and likely ask it as a question: "Hey, what's your reasoning for resting players?" instead of "Hey, stop resting players! Its stupid!" But since its just posting online, we feel we can pose as experts. And I'm guilty of this as much as the next person BTW :-)

[prouster]

Wasn't stifling free speech. But I think its acceptable to say "Why go down this path?"

 

And I'm not claiming to know better than the guys in the dugout. That's kind of my point. I'm saying trust the guys in the dugout. Management has access to such a vast amount of high quality information (statistical and experiential) that its rather shocking we don't trust them on something where our disagreement is based solely on conjecture. "Trust the guy in the dugout with access" is a perfectly rational response.

 

I feel the same way when people disagree with beat writers about the things they see and report on in the clubhouse (thinking the comments section of The Athletic on this one). The beat writer is there, you're watching the game on TV. I'm not saying we should swallow what they say as gospel (and if its Souhan we should ignore it!) but lets not pretend that we somehow know better because we played Legion Ball.

 

I think the anonymity of the internet brings this on. If one of us talked to Rocco face-to-face or had a chance to write him a letter he'd read, I don't think we'd be questioning this so harshly. We'd be more polite and likely ask it as a question: "Hey, what's your reasoning for resting players?" instead of "Hey, stop resting players! Its stupid!" But since its just posting online, we feel we can pose as experts. And I'm guilty of this as much as the next person BTW :-)

FWIW, I think you gave a well reasoned contribution to the topic. The Twins are at least going to get close to 100 wins, and they’re going to do so with relatively few injuries. Is there a direct line to be drawn between rest and fewer injuries? Maybe and maybe not, but logically one seems likely to follow the other.

 

There is, however, a direct line between talking to the players daily and knowing how they (say they) feel. There is no such line for those of us watching on TV. I’m not sure why that’s controversial.

[Only Here in Negative]

 

FWIW, I think you gave a well reasoned contribution to the topic. The Twins are at least going to get close to 100 wins, and they’re going to do so with relatively few injuries. Is there a direct line to be drawn between rest and fewer injuries? Maybe and maybe not, but logically one seems likely to follow the other.

There is, however, a direct line between talking to the players daily and knowing how they (say they) feel. There is no such line for those of us watching on TV. I’m not sure why that’s controversial.

 

Good call on "say they feel". I regularly reflexively say fine when my wife asks how my day was, imagine if they were printing that response. Being a beat writer seems both amazing and also super hard. 

[ScrapTheNickname]

 

This is a great experiment but you'd need to expand it to get a larger sample. One year is too random. If you did this every year for the last 50 years, you'd get a pattern. If it really was 2.17 vs. 1.93, that's not a meaningless difference. That's about a 25% increase in the number of players playing 150. Its not the end of the world but it would show a drop.

 

Catcher might be an interesting place to look as well since that's the position where rest makes the most sense. Looking at catcher performance against league average compared to average games played would maybe provide some insight

My math says 11% decrease, not 25%. (?)

[Rosterman]

The Twins have one regular who will play in 150+ games: Polanco. Rosario and Kepler could both crack 140 if they play every remaining game. Looks like Kepler won't.

 

Cron is at 120. Schoop, Cruz and Gonzales could break 120.

 

Looks like plenty of rest going on here.

 

Even our catchers are evenly split for the season with neither getting 100 games. Used to be a starting catcher would catch at least 110+ games.

 

 

[jimbo92107]

It is difficult to prove a negative, but if Baldelli didn't rest his players, they might have worn down sooner than they did. Baldelli has rested a lot of his regulars, but his substitutes have performed quite well. Astudillo has allowed Garver and Castro some much needed time to heal up bumps and bruises. Torts also has spelled Cron at first, as well as playing third and a little OF. Marwin Gonzalez has been awesome as a super-sub, filling in for Rosie and Kep many times. The key with both these guys, and I'll include Adrianza here, is that their presence in the field and in the lineup has not produced a terrible dip in performance. Each of these guys can hit, field, and play several positions. Now I have to include Arraez, the rookie. Same deal - great hitter, solid fielder at several spots. Glad we got to see him!

 

Granted, this does not necessarily prevent injuries. Guys still crash into walls, turn ankles, etc. However, Baldelli's generous substitutions have in fact helped guys get over bumps and bruises, while keeping bench players involved, giving them a chance to show they could in time become starters. 

[DesertTwinsFan]

 

My math says 11% decrease, not 25%. (?)

To be a math nerd, you are correct that 25% is wrong, but note that Negative said a 25% increase, not decrease, as you calculated. It's a 12.4% increase from 1.93 to 2.17, and a 11.1% decrease the other way.

 

I agree with others that taking 2 years with that difference won't allow drawing conclusions, but looking at each of the years between those two will.

 

Common sense to me says that if you are in a tight race (and even with only 8 games left, the Twins have little room for error or could miss the playoffs), you only afford resting your best players if you have adequate backups. The Twins seem to be ok with that.

[terrydactyls]

One advantage of an occasional day off is the mental rest. I worked ten to twelve hour days, seven days a week for six months on a government project. I found I began making mental mistakes even though I felt physically okay. I finally called in sick on a Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. (I was offered a free ticket to a Kansas City Chiefs game and the opportunity to tailgate with Bret Saberhagen and George Brett. How could I refuse?). I returned energized and worked another 60 straight days until they cut us back to ten hour days, six days a week.

[Mr. Brooks]

One advantage of an occasional day off is the mental rest. I worked ten to twelve hour days, seven days a week for six months on a government project. I found I began making mental mistakes even though I felt physically okay. I finally called in sick on a Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. (I was offered a free ticket to a Kansas City Chiefs game and the opportunity to tailgate with Bret Saberhagen and George Brett. How could I refuse?). I returned energized and worked another 60 straight days until they cut us back to ten hour days, six days a week.

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but these guys don't work anything even close to those hours.

On top of that, they get the All-star break.

[insagt1]

Other than splitting catching duties between the super hitting Garver and the non hitting Castro, it seems like a large part of the 'rest' has been due to injuries, doesn't it?  Cron, Kepler, Cave.,Sano, Astudillo...those guys have all been sidelined with one ailment or other which needs days off to heal. I wonder what things would look like if those guys were totally healthy all season? The injuries have really affect4ed their performances.

 

The injuries really didn't affect the team badly until September...and then it has been an avalanche.

I hope they guys are ready by post season, but I doubt Kepler, Adrianza, and even Cron will be able to play full tilt (if at all) The 'reserves' are really getting a chance to prove their worth

[Rosterman]

And overall the "reserves" have ben jsut fine. The Twins had to figure out a way to get Gonzales in the mix, and have. Castro ahs held his own as the "other" catcher. Adrianza and Astulido have both fared well. Cave came into his own. You can argue that LaMarre and Wade are worthless...just give them some time. Every so-called secondary player has contributed, many have played numerous positions (or outfield spots). Offensively, it has been a Team Effort for the Twins to get where theya re today. 

[Mr. Brooks]

And overall the "reserves" have ben jsut fine. The Twins had to figure out a way to get Gonzales in the mix, and have. Castro ahs held his own as the "other" catcher. Adrianza and Astulido have both fared well. Cave came into his own. You can argue that LaMarre and Wade are worthless...just give them some time. Every so-called secondary player has contributed, many have played numerous positions (or outfield spots). Offensively, it has been a Team Effort for the Twins to get where theya re today.

In what way has Willians Astudillo fared well?

[jorgenswest]

I think there are match ups where Astudillo’s skill set works. His contact skill might give him a better chance against an ace or a bullpen arm that gets lots of swing and miss. We saw that in a recent successful pinch hit opportunity against Boston. Barnes has around a 38% strike out rate. That doesn’t matter much to Astudillo who puts the ball in play most of the time.

 

That at bat made me wonder if Astudillo is a player you want against a better pitcher since he probably doesn’t drop off as much against an ace. He probably doesn’t feast on the below average to poor pitchers either where you might want a batter with patience and harder contact.

 

There may be match ups in the playoffs where his contact skill is the best fit against an elite pitcher.

[Mr. Brooks]

I think there are match ups where Astudillo’s skill set works. His contact skill might give him a better chance against an ace or a bullpen arm that gets lots of swing and miss. We saw that in a recent successful pinch hit opportunity against Boston. Barnes has around a 38% strike out rate. That doesn’t matter much to Astudillo who puts the ball in play most of the time.

 

That at bat made me wonder if Astudillo is a player you want against a better pitcher since he probably doesn’t drop off as much against an ace. He probably doesn’t feast on the below average to poor pitchers either where you might want a batter with patience and harder contact.

 

There may be match ups in the playoffs where his contact skill is the best fit against an elite pitcher.

The closest stat I can find to measure that is the "power/finesse" split on bbref.

Not that there aren't any good finesse pitchers, but most will classify under power due to great pitchers typically getting more strikeouts.

Astudillo is faring far worse against power pitchers than he is finesse pitchers, as I'd assume most hitters are.

 

It also defies common sense to suggest that a poor hitter is going to fare better against good pitching.

 

Finally, whether he has a possible role isn't what I was responding to. He hasn't "fared well" by any measurement. He's fared very poorly for the season as a whole.

[jorgenswest]

It is an honest open minded “wonder” about Astudillo.

 

I certainly questioned Rocco’s decision to pinch hit him with runners on base and Barnes coming in late in the game. They could have gone with lefties Polanco or Wade or stuck with Schoop. In that moment they needed a ball in play to bring in a runner in scoring position against a pitcher who really limits balls in play.

[Riverbrian]

Astudillo is a 600K player. Teams need 600K talent and shouldn’t toss it aside when they have it. Astudillo has it.

 

He has home run pop and he makes extremely high contact with poor plate discipline.

 

Just imagine what Astudillo could do with improved plate discipline.

 

Everyone can see the difference in Sano with improved plate discipline.

 

600K

Talent

Position Flexibility

Fan Favorite

 

He gets a roster spot next year... book it. Then we can rest players in 2020 like we did successfully this year.

[insagt1]

 

The closest stat I can find to measure that is the "power/finesse" split on bbref.
Not that there aren't any good finesse pitchers, but most will classify under power due to great pitchers typically getting more strikeouts.
Astudillo is faring far worse against power pitchers than he is finesse pitchers, as I'd assume most hitters are.

It also defies common sense to suggest that a poor hitter is going to fare better against good pitching.

Finally, whether he has a possible role isn't what I was responding to. He hasn't "fared well" by any measurement. He's fared very poorly for the season as a whole.

I don't know...this really sounds like you just don't like the guy. He hasn't set the world on fire but to say he's fared very poorly is a judgement that I don't think we all share to that extent. He brings intangibles to the clubhouse also that you can't measure by all the zillions of metrics that are now littering the landscape of baseball. He has value and we may yet see it. Let's try not to speak in such absolutes about a guy who has contributed to the mix. Tell  you this much...in a tight spot where we need someone to put bat on ball, would  you rather have Castro, or Cave or Schoop up there? Maybe not.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't know...this really sounds like you just don't like the guy. He hasn't set the world on fire but to say he's fared very poorly is a judgement that I don't think we all share to that extent. He brings intangibles to the clubhouse also that you can't measure by all the zillions of metrics that are now littering the landscape of baseball. He has value and we may yet see it. Let's try not to speak in such absolutes about a guy who has contributed to the mix. Tell you this much...in a tight spot where we need someone to put bat on ball, would you rather have Castro, or Cave or Schoop up there? Maybe not.

I never spoke of intangibles, either positively or negatively.

I have no reason whatsoever not to like Astudillo.

The word "fare" has a very clear definition, it is how he performed on the field, not his intangibles in the clubhouse or his situational value.

 

I'll leave his value in those areas to the discretion of the FO and the field staff. As to how he's fared on the field, it hasn't been good. I'm not saying he should be released, or left off the playoff roster, or anything like that. Simply making an accurate, factual observation of how he's fared on the field.

Perhaps small sample size is to blame, perhaps he has played injured, perhaps he'll improve, I don't know. But his performance, over the sample we have to observe this season, has been quite poor.