Article: Roster Becomes Clearer With More Transactions

[CDog]

The question was need versus choice...simple question is, did he NEED to do it? Cause the argument seemed to be playing backups as much as we do is due to starters needing rest or backups needing to get some time in...but this is at the beginning of the season....so he does it even when it very likely isn't needed, but because he wants to. Where's the need for the starters to rest?

 

And the point I made is accurate...in the first 20 games there were 18, 19 different lineups (and that's just when I stopped looking for it last year...at the beginning of last season I said, 'I wonder how many different lineup we'll have to start the season'). No matter how you break it down where you show stability on some spots, that's how it went. You want to read into what I'm saying, all I'm saying is...18, 19 different lineups.

 

OH...and by the way, if the issue is rest, then the 18 or 19 number is NOT true. In games 1, 5, 8, and 13 the same players played and at the same positions. Game 13 had Willingham and Morneau flipped in the batting order from the other three. So that's already down to 17.

 

Also, Games 4 and 20 had the same players with one exception who was injured (Willingham) being replaced (we have to agree that was a good idea, right?) so it wasn't another lineup being used "for rest." And Games 2 and 9 were identical with the single exception that one player from Game 2 wasn't on the roster anymore and was replaced (again, that seems like a good idea to not just leave that empty spot out in the field and give a free out in the batting order).

[CDog]

It would be nice if every player could handle, or wanted to play every game, like they used to back in the day. (Just think of what Gehrig or Ripken would think of all these days off.)

 

Comparisons like this sort of drive me crazy. Aside from the players "nowadays" that don't play as much as Ripken and Gehrig, do you know who else didn't play as much as those two? Every single other player over the last hundred and twenty years or so.

 

I'd love to see some actual analysis of how many games players played then and now.

 

As an anecdotal piece, I recently heard someone doing the same lament of how much tougher guys were in the "good old days" and specifically mentioned how much more often Pierzynski and Mientkiewicz played compared to Mauer and Morneau. Two or five minutes of internetting later showed that from the time they had become regular starters to the end of their time with the Twins (or the present time of the conversation...granted this was before Morneau missed an entire season, essentially) that they had averaged nearly identical numbers of games.

 

Anyone have any actual facts on this?

[Mr. Brooks]

Comparisons like this sort of drive me crazy. Aside from the players "nowadays" that don't play as much as Ripken and Gehrig, do you know who else didn't play as much as those two? Every single other player over the last hundred and twenty years or so.

 

I'd love to see some actual analysis of how many games players played then and now.

 

As an anecdotal piece, I recently heard someone doing the same lament of how much tougher guys were in the "good old days" and specifically mentioned how much more often Pierzynski and Mientkiewicz played compared to Mauer and Morneau. Two or five minutes of internetting later showed that from the time they had become regular starters to the end of their time with the Twins (or the present time of the conversation...granted this was before Morneau missed an entire season, essentially) that they had averaged nearly identical numbers of games.

 

Anyone have any actual facts on this?

 

Uh, the point of my post wasnt to yearn for the days of yesteryear.

I don't know if, as a whole, players played a higher % of the teams games than they do now.

My point was that there WERE players who played every single game then. Gehrig and Ripken were easy examples for me, because they had such long streaks, but there were many other players who played all of their teams games for a season, even if just for a few years.

Now, nobody does that.

Those ARE facts, even if they cannot conclude that players as a whole played more, there used to be star players who played every single game in a given season. Now there are none.

Besides, my point wasnt to show how tough or heroic players were then compared to today, my point was to show that Gardy isnt the only manager who gives days off, and that it's not necessarily his preference or even his decision in every case.

[cmathewson]

Me thinks his nose is growing

 

Have you seen this kid? He's the best prospect the Twins have had since Mauer. Morneau and Kubel were good prospects, but they do not play a premium position. He's better than Span or Revere by a long shot. At this stage in his career, he's better than Hunter was at the same age.

 

He's made some plays this spring that I doubt Hunter would have made. Today he caught a liner in the gap that shocked everyone, including Riemhold, who was playing half way between second and third after hitting a double. After making the catch, Hicks easily nailed him at second for a double play.

 

As far as his hitting, it's been amazing to watch. When he's hot, he pulls the ball hard. When he's slumping, he just takes the ball the other way. He's been slumping the last week or so. In that time, he's had a 4-4 day and two 3-5 days without an 0-fer. His approach is just amazing for a player his age.

 

I know it's spring training, but he's actually playing better now than earlier in camp, now that he doesn't have to worry about making the team. He's relaxed and doing his thing, against mostly major league competition at this point.

 

Has he earned it? If any player in the last 10 years has earned it, Hicks has. Will this last into the season? Probably not at this level. No one expects him to have a 1.000 OPS. But I would bet he has a better year than Span did last year.

[CDog]

My point was that there WERE players who played every single game then....

Now, nobody does that.

Those ARE facts, ... there used to be star players who played every single game in a given season. Now there are none.

 

Four players played 162 games in 2012. Ten more played 160+.

 

Only one in 2011 and 2009, but six and eleven, respectively, played 160+.

 

Two in 2010 played them all with another ten playing 160+.

 

And our own Justin Morneau played 163 (!) in 2008 along with four others who played 162 and six more who played 160+.

 

Prince Fielder has missed one game in the last four seasons combined.

[Mr. Brooks]

Four players played 162 games in 2012. Ten more played 160+.

 

Only one in 2011 and 2009, but six and eleven, respectively, played 160+.

 

Two in 2010 played them all with another ten playing 160+.

 

And our own Justin Morneau played 163 (!) in 2008 along with four others who played 162 and six more who played 160+.

 

Prince Fielder has missed one game in the last four seasons combined.

 

Okay, almost nobody does that now.

 

Back then almost every team had one or two guys who played every day.

[CDog]

Okay, almost nobody does that now.

 

Back then almost every team had one or two guys who played every day.

 

Back when? I grabbed a few random years... '88 2 played them all and three more played 160+. '83 2 and 8. '74 4 and 6. '67 4 and 4. '61 4 and 2.

 

Before that they only played 154 game schedules and it obviously was more common, but certainly not as large as the number of teams times two.

 

Anyone know why several guys played more than one game more than the full schedule? For instance, Cesar Tovar played 164 in '67 and Wiki says the Twins had two ties that year? What? (Not to hijack the thread even further...)

[Mr. Brooks]

Back when? I grabbed a few random years... '88 2 played them all and three more played 160+. '83 2 and 8. '74 4 and 6. '67 4 and 4. '61 4 and 2.

 

Before that they only played 154 game schedules and it obviously was more common, but certainly not as large as the number of teams times two.

 

Anyone know why several guys played more than one game more than the full schedule? For instance, Cesar Tovar played 164 in '67 and Wiki says the Twins had two ties that year? What? (Not to hijack the thread even further...)

 

Back then, a tie game was replayed, and did not count in the standings. It did however count towards individual statistics.

Ron Santo and Billy Williams also played in 164 games, in 1965, because of this same rule.

[CDog]

Back then, a tie game was replayed, and did not count in the standings. It did however count towards individual statistics.

Ron Santo and Billy Williams also played in 164 games, in 1965, because of this same rule.

 

But how/why were there tie games in the first place? Also...so if they got one of these tie games and then replayed it only for individual statistics purposes...did the original game still count also (it must have for the Games Played stat, at least)? Or did the original game stats get wiped away? Or...? And how is this something I missed for so long?

[Brock Beauchamp]

But how/why were there tie games in the first place? Also...so if they got one of these tie games and then replayed it only for individual statistics purposes...did the original game still count also (it must have for the Games Played stat, at least)? Or did the original game stats get wiped away? Or...? And how is this something I missed for so long?

 

Ties were caused primarily by rain delays, I believe.

[Mr. Brooks]

But how/why were there tie games in the first place? Also...so if they got one of these tie games and then replayed it only for individual statistics purposes...did the original game still count also (it must have for the Games Played stat, at least)? Or did the original game stats get wiped away? Or...? And how is this something I missed for so long?

 

All individual stats counted, none of the team stats counted.