How the Twins' Organizational Pitching Plan Informs Trades for a Starter - Caretaker Exclusive

[Matthew Trueblood]

While we wait (and wait, and wait) for a trade that will shore up the front end of the Twins’ starting rotation for 2024 and beyond, there’s another question we need to ask. How many starters, exactly, does the team intend to use?

Image courtesy of Brock Beauchamp / Getty Images

By now, it shouldn't surprise anyone to hear that the six-man rotation is creeping in as a new normal throughout MLB. The league began trending that way half a decade ago, and the pandemic accelerated the process. In 2021, successful teams like the Astros and Brewers unapologetically turned to six-man staffs to managed workloads as their starters built back up after a truncated season. That was just one way that the trend began to take deeper root.

Shohei Ohtani requires the teams for which he pitches to work on six-man rotations, to accommodate the extra recovery needed to be both an All-MLB slugger and an ace starter. The Dodgers were tending heavily toward a six-man staff even before they signed him last month, though. As imports from Japan's Nippon Professional Baseball proliferate in MLB, some rotations are also stretching out to accommodate them, because in NPB, starters work on a weekly schedule. 

The same is true, of course, in collegiate baseball, and in the restructured post-pandemic minor-league schedule, many teams put their prospects on a weekly one, too. Over 60 percent of starts throughout the league were made on five or more days of rest in 2023, and that's not going to change in 2024.

The majority of the teams who have moved in this direction so far--the Angels, the Dodgers, the Astros, the Red Sox, the Mets, and the Padres have done it most often over the last three years--are big-spending, big-market operations. It's hard to afford six starting pitchers (and the rest of what you need to be a winning team) on a budget much smaller than $200 million, these days. The Twins certainly won't spend at that level in 2024, but they still might need to increase their commitment to the six-man rotation. They already ranked sixth in MLB in starts on long rest in 2023, and their approach will dictate that they continue to move that way.

View full article

[DJL44]

I don't know why teams want even less work from their best pitchers. Innings totals have been trending down as starters are limited to 5-6 innings per start. Now they're going to wait a week between starts? How much recovery time is needed after pitching 90 pitches in a game? We will have starting pitchers getting paid $40M to pitch 120 innings.

[nicksaviking]

3 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I don't know why teams want even less work from their best pitchers. Innings totals have been trending down as starters are limited to 5-6 innings per start. Now they're going to wait a week between starts? How much recovery time is needed after pitching 90 pitches in a game? We will have starting pitchers getting paid $40M to pitch 120 innings.

Well do you want them pitching 7-8 innings while throwing 91-92 MPH or 5-6 innings while throwing 94-95 MPH?

The guy throwing 91-92 is going to give up way more runs.

[Blyleven2011]

If the FO doesn't trade or sign a starting pitcher , we are going to go through alot of different starting pitchers  , kinda like 2021 and 2022 ... 

[USAFChief]

28 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Well do you want them pitching 7-8 innings while throwing 91-92 MPH or 5-6 innings while throwing 94-95 MPH?

The guy throwing 91-92 is going to give up way more runs.

I don't know if that's true. MLB lowered the mound in the 60's because there wasn't enough offense.

[USAFChief]

Personally, I'd rather see a move back toward 4 man rotations. Ever expanding pitching staffs, with lower and lower workloads, have done nothing to decrease injury.

It does severely limit the other half the roster though. 

[chpettit19]

14 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Personally, I'd rather see a move back toward 4 man rotations. Ever expanding pitching staffs, with lower and lower workloads, have done nothing to decrease injury.

It does severely limit the other half the roster though. 

I don't think the recent surge in expanding pitching staffs has anything to do with injuries. Or at least very little. The goal is to increase percentage of peak performance. Same with off days for position players (or rest days in the NBA). It has very little to do with injuries (in most cases) and far more to do with maximizing percentage of peak performance.

I'd like to see a change in rules to bring back longer starts because I think it's more entertaining. Although I don't like the idea of adding even more hitters to the rosters and seeing even more platooning and pinch hitting. But I'd take that over the ever shortening starts followed by a train of relievers.

[nicksaviking]

28 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I don't know if that's true. MLB lowered the mound in the 60's because there wasn't enough offense.

Unless we're talking about off speed pitches, I don't see how the same pitcher throwing the same pitches but at lower velocity doesn't result in more hittable pitches.

If the league is going to go back to 4 man rotations and 7 IP per start, that's going to have to be a league mandated requirement, like the new shift rules or three-batters-per-reliever rule. Any club willing to jump in a time machine to make the game more enjoyable to watch is going to be putting themselves at a tremendous disadvantage.

[oregontwin]

The art of changing speeds and location

[nicksaviking]

48 minutes ago, oregontwin said:

The art of changing speeds and location

They still do that and a ton. 

And now the offenses have computers to help them figure out when and where the pitchers like to do this.

[Jocko87]

5 hours ago, DJL44 said:

I don't know why teams want even less work from their best pitchers. Innings totals have been trending down as starters are limited to 5-6 innings per start. Now they're going to wait a week between starts? How much recovery time is needed after pitching 90 pitches in a game? We will have starting pitchers getting paid $40M to pitch 120 innings.

It’s the beautiful balance of baseball. Full season vs post season strategy.  Teams want the most, best work from the pitcher at the most important time.  The 6 man rotation is a regular season strategy to hopefully be strongest in the postseason.  It’s just the sad truth that June innings are mostly time filler. 

It’s very easy in the game threads to second guess every move like it’s the most obvious thing while forgetting that they are prioritizing different things than we are.  Come postseason time, then see what they do and judge.  Oddly, Rocco must have been reading the game threads because he seemed very in line with the consensus. 

[South Dakota Tom]

I understand the premise but don’t see the same result.  32 starts equals 1/5 of the season.  As you suggest there is often an off day in the week so pitchers have 5 days between starts.  Having 6 days and six starters means any short start puts way more pressure on a (now person-limited) bullpen.  The Twins have a limited stock of starters (none of whom have options, typically).  The way to keep them fresh is to rotate relievers to suck up innings and use 6th/7th starters to give the main five a respite, as needed.  If we had all AAAA pitchers starting games, then yes - use them as the malleable portion of your staff.  This team isn’t built that way.

[DocBauer]

I don't think the mention of Ohtani is even relevant as he's both special and unique.

As to any other ideas about a 6 man rotation, I don't see it as viable or necessary. To some degree, all teams do it here and there between double headers, giving someone an extra day or rest, trying to extend a season for a young or rehabbed arm, etc. But the 5 man rotation has been successful for DECADES. It works.

With apologies to those who clamor for the days of a 4 man staff or starters consistently going 7 IP, or more, you just have to understand the game has CHANGED. 

And MLB, IMO, has been too slow to adapt...in some areas.

I still remember when a guy who threw 88mph had a good fastball. Now, that's a junk ball thrower. BACK IN THE DAY, it was considered a no-no for position players to lift weights as it would decrease their flexibility and ability to hit. Yes, that was true.

Things began to change dramatically sometime in the 80's where players began to get bigger, stronger, faster, through weight training and good exercise programs. (Yes, there was a steroid situation, but not for everyone). I dare say a player from TODAY, even a slightly above average player...let's just say a Kepler, Polanco, healthy Kirilloff player from our current Twins...would have been DOMINATE in the 60's and 70's. They would just be a different kind of athlete.

Let's think about the NFL for a moment. Even through a good chunk of the 80's, if you didn't have a STUD RB, you weren't going to win, generally. Have you ever looked at career passing numbers from HOF QB's from the 20th Century? Tarkenton was the outlier in the 70's who's numbers were beat, eventually, by Marino, Payton, Farmer, etc, in a NEW GAME and 16 game season. But look at Tittle, and Otto Graham and Bradshaw and Namath, and the list goes on. Their numbers don't even compare to late 20th and 21st century numbers produced in today's game. 

So MLB should stay stuck in retro because why? 

Analytics are NOT some disease, it's just a change. Hitters are so much more dangerous, so pitchers have become more wicked in their stuff and velocity. For DECADES, analytics have been in play. The very nature of platooning a LH or RH batter or pitcher was considered "natural". They just didn't call it "analytics" back then.

Discovery has shown that as players have grown, so has the usage of players grown. Unless you have one of a very special group of SP at your disposal, you are proven to be better off having your SP go through the lineup twice, maybe three times, but no more.

No offense to Blyleven, or Ryan, or Palmer, or pitcher X you want to name from the 60's to 80's, but if they faced today's athletes, and those players had I Pads to watch their approach at the plate, our perspective of their careers and results would change.

And that's OK. It's just a natural progression of the game.

I applaud the pitch clock. I applaud the 3 batter minimum unless finishing an inning. I applaud the 2 throws to 1B as it was getting ridiculous! I love speed being brought back in to the game because of the 2 throws. (The larger bases are really not a big deal). And I applaud the 26 man roster, though I think MLB is making a mistake there.

For YEARS I have DESPISED the NFL 45 man game day roster. Especially as the game has changed, why in hell did they have a 53 man roster but only 45 could play? ESPECIALLY when the seasons became longer, and injury concerns became more prominent, why?? THANKFULLY they've adapted and the practice squad ups and downs have become more flexible, though I still have some issues with game day rosters.

I actually LOVED the MLB roster construction during covid. It was a 30 man roster that dropped down to 28. I may be recalling incorrectly.  But I believe that was the initial plan. 

With the way the game has changed, SP now throw as hard as they can for 5-6 IP, occasionally more. And that's done for maximum effort and production. But for so many reasons, we are in a new era. And if we want more excitement and energy in the game we love, I wish MLB would reflect back to the covid days. 

Why not a 28 man roster permanently to adapt to today's game? 13 pitchers is enough, IMO. But how about 15 position players so injury is less of an issue. Or platoons could take place for more exciting production. Or a PH or speedster off the bench might make a difference. 

In years past, a 10 man staff was accepted. An 11 man staff was understable. Anything more was crazy. But its not where the game is today.

You'd rather have a 14/14 split, I will only debate you to a certain degree. But I think a 13/15 split just makes sense.

4 SP is never coming back. I don't think a 6 man rotation makes sense either, we're just talking about "give away" games as most teams can't even find 5 good SP.

MLB, IMO, should just adapt to the 28 man roster they had a couple years ago and just allow for the changes in the game as it is TODAY. 

 

[Fezig]

16 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I don't know if that's true. MLB lowered the mound in the 60's because there wasn't enough offense.

Greg Maddux averaged 89-90 mph on his fastball and did ok. On the opposite end, Roger Clemons averaged 94mph throughout most of his career and continually finished in the top in innings pitch. The same could be said about Randy Johnson. Yes, those guys are HOF, but we'll never know the extent of what any of our pitchers can do if they aren't given the opportunity. 

 

[DJL44]

15 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

It’s the beautiful balance of baseball. Full season vs post season strategy.  Teams want the most, best work from the pitcher at the most important time.  The 6 man rotation is a regular season strategy to hopefully be strongest in the postseason.  It’s just the sad truth that June innings are mostly time filler. 

I can understand giving pitchers more rest in September to prepare them for the playoffs, but I don't know why that would affect how they are used in June. Do you really want to give your 6th best pitcher more innings at the expense of your best 4 pitchers? That doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Maybe there are too many playoff spots now and it's just too easy to get one.

[DJL44]

8 hours ago, DocBauer said:

the 5 man rotation has been successful for DECADES. It works.

Unless you have one of a very special group of SP at your disposal, you are proven to be better off having your SP go through the lineup twice, maybe three times, but no more.

The change to limiting your starting pitcher to only go through the lineup twice is what makes a 4-man rotation make more sense. Starting pitchers are not being used the same way they were for decades before. If you're limiting the amount of work the starting pitcher does in any individual game it makes sense to get that same pitcher as many games as possible. Teams don't typically give a 2-inning reliever 4 full days of rest between outings (they really can't or they would run out of pitchers). Why is it necessary to give that much rest to someone limited to pitching 4-5 innings?

[saviking]

20 hours ago, Blyleven2011 said:

If the FO doesn't trade or sign a starting pitcher , we are going to go through alot of different starting pitchers  , kinda like 2021 and 2022 ... 

I say bring back Burt Blyleven and Jim Kaat and pitch them eight to nine innings every 4 days ..

[JD-TWINS]

10 hours ago, DocBauer said:

I don't think the mention of Ohtani is even relevant as he's both special and unique.

As to any other ideas about a 6 man rotation, I don't see it as viable or necessary. To some degree, all teams do it here and there between double headers, giving someone an extra day or rest, trying to extend a season for a young or rehabbed arm, etc. But the 5 man rotation has been successful for DECADES. It works.

With apologies to those who clamor for the days of a 4 man staff or starters consistently going 7 IP, or more, you just have to understand the game has CHANGED. 

And MLB, IMO, has been too slow to adapt...in some areas.

I still remember when a guy who threw 88mph had a good fastball. Now, that's a junk ball thrower. BACK IN THE DAY, it was considered a no-no for position players to lift weights as it would decrease their flexibility and ability to hit. Yes, that was true.

Things began to change dramatically sometime in the 80's where players began to get bigger, stronger, faster, through weight training and good exercise programs. (Yes, there was a steroid situation, but not for everyone). I dare say a player from TODAY, even a slightly above average player...let's just say a Kepler, Polanco, healthy Kirilloff player from our current Twins...would have been DOMINATE in the 60's and 70's. They would just be a different kind of athlete.

Let's think about the NFL for a moment. Even through a good chunk of the 80's, if you didn't have a STUD RB, you weren't going to win, generally. Have you ever looked at career passing numbers from HOF QB's from the 20th Century? Tarkenton was the outlier in the 70's who's numbers were beat, eventually, by Marino, Payton, Farmer, etc, in a NEW GAME and 16 game season. But look at Tittle, and Otto Graham and Bradshaw and Namath, and the list goes on. Their numbers don't even compare to late 20th and 21st century numbers produced in today's game. 

So MLB should stay stuck in retro because why? 

Analytics are NOT some disease, it's just a change. Hitters are so much more dangerous, so pitchers have become more wicked in their stuff and velocity. For DECADES, analytics have been in play. The very nature of platooning a LH or RH batter or pitcher was considered "natural". They just didn't call it "analytics" back then.

Discovery has shown that as players have grown, so has the usage of players grown. Unless you have one of a very special group of SP at your disposal, you are proven to be better off having your SP go through the lineup twice, maybe three times, but no more.

No offense to Blyleven, or Ryan, or Palmer, or pitcher X you want to name from the 60's to 80's, but if they faced today's athletes, and those players had I Pads to watch their approach at the plate, our perspective of their careers and results would change.

And that's OK. It's just a natural progression of the game.

I applaud the pitch clock. I applaud the 3 batter minimum unless finishing an inning. I applaud the 2 throws to 1B as it was getting ridiculous! I love speed being brought back in to the game because of the 2 throws. (The larger bases are really not a big deal). And I applaud the 26 man roster, though I think MLB is making a mistake there.

For YEARS I have DESPISED the NFL 45 man game day roster. Especially as the game has changed, why in hell did they have a 53 man roster but only 45 could play? ESPECIALLY when the seasons became longer, and injury concerns became more prominent, why?? THANKFULLY they've adapted and the practice squad ups and downs have become more flexible, though I still have some issues with game day rosters.

I actually LOVED the MLB roster construction during covid. It was a 30 man roster that dropped down to 28. I may be recalling incorrectly.  But I believe that was the initial plan. 

With the way the game has changed, SP now throw as hard as they can for 5-6 IP, occasionally more. And that's done for maximum effort and production. But for so many reasons, we are in a new era. And if we want more excitement and energy in the game we love, I wish MLB would reflect back to the covid days. 

Why not a 28 man roster permanently to adapt to today's game? 13 pitchers is enough, IMO. But how about 15 position players so injury is less of an issue. Or platoons could take place for more exciting production. Or a PH or speedster off the bench might make a difference. 

In years past, a 10 man staff was accepted. An 11 man staff was understable. Anything more was crazy. But its not where the game is today.

You'd rather have a 14/14 split, I will only debate you to a certain degree. But I think a 13/15 split just makes sense.

4 SP is never coming back. I don't think a 6 man rotation makes sense either, we're just talking about "give away" games as most teams can't even find 5 good SP.

MLB, IMO, should just adapt to the 28 man roster they had a couple years ago and just allow for the changes in the game as it is TODAY. 

 

Games seem a little more exciting with the 28 man in September! I think the roster limitations and a maximum of options on a player are both in place so the rich clubs can’t stash players and water down the rest of the League’s talent pool. Tough for me to argue against this. IMO - 26 man with a decent AAA team to supplement in times of injury, all bases are covered.

[Jocko87]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

I can understand giving pitchers more rest in September to prepare them for the playoffs, but I don't know why that would affect how they are used in June. Do you really want to give your 6th best pitcher more innings at the expense of your best 4 pitchers? That doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Maybe there are too many playoff spots now and it's just too easy to get one.

I don't know how I would sus out these numbers but yes, I'm fine with that.  The difference between 4th and 6th best in June WPA in a vanishingly small factor over the course of the season.  I think its better to look at the regular season as a percentage of competitive innings.  That 6th guy is still a guy they are counting on, a position player is non-competitive.  Guys 6-14 need used to figure out what they have, while still being competitive. 

No banners in June, unless you watch NBA.  The NBA load management is an interesting comp too.  What do you mean I can't watch Gerritt Cole when the Yankees come to town!  Also interesting that I can't stand the NBA and the bad regular season is a large part of it but I'm fine with it in baseball. 

The 6 man rotation is a step in the NBA direction, unfortunately.

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

I am not a fan of 6 man rotations,  I am a fan of having 6 starting pitchers on a team going into each year with 1 to 2 prospects that you think you can count on during the season if need be.  It is inevitable 1 to 2 pitchers will go down at the same time.  To limit your depth issues and also causing you bullpen to get overwhelmed your depth can help you get through the rough patches.  It worked for us this year as well as the Texas Rangers.  

For me I think Lopez and Paddack will be our 1 and 2 this year but their is a lot of variability potential in Paddack and how many innings he will be able to pitch.  with that being said, I think its in the Twins best interest to try to trade for a #2 or #3 pitcher.