How Should the Minnesota Twins Use Their Last Bullpen Spot?

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, USAFChief said:

No, I made the claim there isn't room to "piggyback" starters. Two guys who share a start, and only pitch every 5th game.

There isn't. Nobody does that.

so you are ok having a guy you plan to have pitcher 2-3 innings when Paddock pitches? I'm guessing no. We disagree. I think there is room. I mean, that guy could pitch 2 innings another start also many weeks, especially early in the year with off days.

[USAFChief]

Just now, Mike Sixel said:

so you are ok having a guy you plan to have pitcher 2-3 innings when Paddock pitches? I'm guessing no. We disagree. I think there is room. I mean, that guy could pitch 2 innings another start also many weeks, especially early in the year with off days.

I'm not ok with the idea of dedicating a pitcher who only pitches when Paddack pitches. That's what you're proposing. 

As an aside, if a pitcher needs that, routinely, he shouldn't be in your rotation anyway.

[nicksaviking]

30 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

RP’s are viewed a little differently tho. If an RP is hanging 0000’s and available every other day, they wont be option’d no matter who they are. 

Right, so if you have some of those guys in the pen who under no circumstances should be optioned, you probably need to consider someone who can be optioned and/or someone who can pitch multiple innings in the last spot. The consideration has to be more than just who pitched best in 6 spring training innings.

[Blyleven2011]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

I don't think this is new. While 'long relief' has been a term I typically see on THIS site, I've heard both used for years. Probably at least since the Matt Guerrier days.

Also 'swing man' for the guys who get spot starts.

I've never in all my years heard stretch relievers ...

Swingman , yes ...

Thanks for the update...

Icouldn't  refuse having  alittle fun with it though ...

[JD-TWINS]

3 hours ago, Dman said:

That is the first year he threw that many innings. 1 out of about 5 and he needed a long break at the end of the season to get there. I guess if you feel that is a good ratio or that he will never have any arm issues then that is fine don't include him.  To me he has a history of breaking down and one year doesn't mean everything is necessarily all good. I'd still have a contingency plan for at least one if not two of Paddack, Descla and Ober.

A major rub with Lopez before arriving here was “injury issues”……….after a 2nd clean year in ‘23 I hear nothing of his history of “breaking down”………..everyone in pro sports is up against potential injury, it’s a given risk.

The 167 innings in ‘23 for Ober was a great sign of his capabilities if he maintains health. To get to that level of innings with a MLB 3.43 ERA is nothing but positive!!

If he throws 160 innings at MLB level and Ryan throws 170 innings and Lopez 180 innings, they all will have met the low bar for work load. 90 starts. Fresh for Playoffs. (35% of total workload)

With DeSclafani - Varland - Paddack - Festa - SWR - Headrick - Canterino, 7 guys for 2 spots, it seems the depth is in place. This, with the dozen bullpen options, seems to be enough to get things accomplished. 420 innings between these 7 guys over 72 starts. (29% of total workload)

Jax-Stewart-Staumont-Funderburk-Okert-Thielbar-Duran-Alcala-Topa-Weiss-Winder-Sands plus 3-4 more guys as needed to cover 520 innings from the Pen. (36% of total workload)…….this group will get some contributions from DeSclafani-Headrick-Canterino & late in the year from Varland &/or Paddack.

Sign another FA starter (Bonus!) between now & March 5 and the workload keeps getting spread out & the depth looks even better.

[IndianaTwin]

2 hours ago, IaBeanCounter said:

 

What i didn't understand is that last year there were times when a relief pitcher (coming in the 5th or 6th inning) would have an a easy 5-9 pitch inning and then be replaced the next inning.  Unless there were a lot of rockets being caught, why weren't they sent out to start the next inning?   What is the difference between a two inning appearance with 20-25 pitches and a one inning appearance with 20-25 pitches.   Duran pitched into a second inning in 8 of his 59 games.  I expect most of the relievers can go more than one inning. 

I am of the belief that good relievers allow runs in about 25% of their appearances.  If the Twins are using 4 or more relievers in a game, in most cases, one or more of them will give up runs. 

The difference is a stop-and-start in the two inning appearance, along with an extra warmup time with an additional eight pitches.

It's been 45 years since I've thrown anything but a batting practice pitch, so I can't speak from experience, but teams seem to consider that factor seriously and try to avoid it.

Only going from memory, it seems like when outings last from one inning to the next, it's much more often that they have finished and inning and then get a full inning (and probably on less than the top end of your 5-9 range) than it is to pitch even a short full inning and then go back out to start the next. They seem very reluctant to send out a pitcher (other than perhaps a starter) without the plan that they will pitch the full inning. 

[DocBauer]

OK, first of all, you can change the usage of your pen the entire season depending on needs, so I don't know that there's a single, correct answer. EXAMPLE: 2 starters go down, and you're replacing them the best you can. Might be a rough game or two when a long man might be needed.

I know the game has changed over the last 20 years from starters who go 6 and 7, sometimes 8, to guys going 5-6, and sometimes 7. And the pen has gone from 5 or 6 guys to 8...but that's still EIGHT guys in your pen these days. And you can't find a couple who can throw 2 innings every few days??

Last season, Sands sat on the bench for as long as 10-12 days without appearing in a game. Now, I'm sure he loved being with the Twins, as well as collecting service time, but that is a horrible way to fill a roster spot. The Twins basically played with a 25 man roster at times, when everyone else had a 26 man crew. I want 8 good arms that I like and trust and don't feel bad about putting in to a game. And again, I should be able to find a couple of them that can throw 2 innings every few days without compromising them or the rest of the pen.

If my rotation is bad, or so shallow, that I have to have a long man in the pen because I actually EXPECT some 3 and 4 IP games on any kind of regular basis...think Archer a couple years ago...then I have a much larger issue than this particular debate.

Having a long guy sitting in the pen because someone MIGHT have a really bad day or get hurt is a really poor use of resources and roster management. Especially when you will have the option of making a roster move the next day if truly necessary, say in case of injury.

I just don't see where this should really be a debate.

[KBJ1]

I feel that varland should be the 6th starter/swingman. Yes the bullpen has depth, but another lockdown guy like Devin Williams would be far better than the throw 12 guys at the wall and see who sticks approach we seem to be doing.

No Headrick, Winder or Sands please.

[jorgenswest]

@DocBauer

I looked at the Sands stretch of games earlier today. He pitched a long stretch n May 28 and the was back pitching in AAA June 28. In between the Twins starters routinely pitched into the 6th and 7th inning. Sometimes longer including Joe Ryan’s complete game shutout. The pen was rested and they could have done without a 13th pitcher through that stretch.

Should they have had the foresight to go down to 12 pitchers in June? I can’t see how they would. The schedule wasn’t easy and there weren’t many off days.

Did the miss opportunities to use Sands? There was one stretch from June 15 to June 18.

• Gray went 4 innings on June 15 but left with the lead. I think I would go with a better reliever they were rested. They ended up losing when Jorge Lopez blew up the ninth so I suppose they could have assessed that Sands would be more effective than Lopez.
• There was a bullpen game started by DeLeon two days later. I am sure he was in that plan but they pitched a shut out in this game winning 2-0 and stuck with their best relievers to finish it out.
• After the bullpen game they used the shuttle to bring up Balazovic and he was needed when Varland was pulled in the 5th. Balazovic held the, scoreless through the 8th inning in his best performance as a Twin.

Did they really use this roster spot horribly? In order to use it horribly they needed their starters to routinely pitch deeper in games. That is a good thing. They needed their bullpen to step up and that happened in the two game stretch with DeLeon starting the bullpen game and Balazovic picking up the game in the 5th inning and shutting them down through the 8th. I wouldn’t have taken him out. The only other opportunities would be to take a starter out earlier and not let them pitch into the 6th or 7th. There were some starts where the starter was left in to work out of a jam and gave up some runs. There were more where they worked their way out of the jam.

I hope that long starts create similar horrible roster use this year and that 8th spot in the pen is not needed often.

[DocBauer]

40 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

@DocBauer

I looked at the Sands stretch of games earlier today. He pitched a long stretch n May 28 and the was back pitching in AAA June 28. In between the Twins starters routinely pitched into the 6th and 7th inning. Sometimes longer including Joe Ryan’s complete game shutout. The pen was rested and they could have done without a 13th pitcher through that stretch.

Should they have had the foresight to go down to 12 pitchers in June? I can’t see how they would. The schedule wasn’t easy and there weren’t many off days.

Did the miss opportunities to use Sands? There was one stretch from June 15 to June 18.

• Gray went 4 innings on June 15 but left with the lead. I think I would go with a better reliever they were rested. They ended up losing when Jorge Lopez blew up the ninth so I suppose they could have assessed that Sands would be more effective than Lopez.
• There was a bullpen game started by DeLeon two days later. I am sure he was in that plan but they pitched a shut out in this game winning 2-0 and stuck with their best relievers to finish it out.
• After the bullpen game they used the shuttle to bring up Balazovic and he was needed when Varland was pulled in the 5th. Balazovic held the, scoreless through the 8th inning in his best performance as a Twin.

Did they really use this roster spot horribly? In order to use it horribly they needed their starters to routinely pitch deeper in games. That is a good thing. They needed their bullpen to step up and that happened in the two game stretch with DeLeon starting the bullpen game and Balazovic picking up the game in the 5th inning and shutting them down through the 8th. I wouldn’t have taken him out. The only other opportunities would be to take a starter out earlier and not let them pitch into the 6th or 7th. There were some starts where the starter was left in to work out of a jam and gave up some runs. There were more where they worked their way out of the jam.

I hope that long starts create similar horrible roster use this year and that 8th spot in the pen is not needed often.

I think you sort of answered your own questions a couple times here.

#1} As a team/organization, you have to be honest with yourself and what you have, and who you are. Let's remember early on Maeda struggled and Mahle didn't last long. And you even offered up evidence that Sands wasn't used and the starters were going 6 IP per on average. So unless you believe your rotation arms are doing it with smoke and mirrors, shouldn't you be honest enough with yourself to realize you're just wasting a roster spot on someone you aren't using unless you have one of those "emergency situation" days? So should they have had foresight to know they didn't really need Sands? Absolutely. 

As a counterpoint, they should be honest with themselves coming out of ST this year. Do they trust their rotation? Do they like it even if it might not look as good as the one coming out of ST last year? Then maybe they just really believe they need a long guy to sit there "just in case". 

2} You included a stretch of games in which you asked if they missed an opportunity to use Sands. Well, the point is, as you clearly stated, they didn't use him. So whether it's Sands, or Winder, or Headrick, or anyone else, reserving a spot for a guy you only use in occasional "just in case scenarios" makes no sense. Especially when recent history shows that you AREN'T using that guy. 

I agree that I hope they don't need to use their 8th guy a lot either. That means the starters are doing great and so are the other 7 guys in the pen. But I sure want to know if I have an extra inning game, or a couple guys were used up the day before, and I need to turn to that #8 guy, I'd like to feel I can trust him rather than saying "well, guess I got no choice but to use him".

Good post!

[JD-TWINS]

8 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Carrying reliever(s) who you don't want to actually use is silly. There is no need for a "long reliever."

Similarly, there isn't room for this silly notion that you can "piggyback" a starter with another starter. You don't have enough players to dedicate TWO pitchers who only pitch every 5th day. 

It’s not hard to use a long reliever if you think he can get guys out - great way to rest a bullpen. Twins “long relievers” have been the 8th guy out in the roster because there was no better option. This year they have options as well as guys they could use as a long guy.

[JD-TWINS]

5 hours ago, DocBauer said:

OK, first of all, you can change the usage of your pen the entire season depending on needs, so I don't know that there's a single, correct answer. EXAMPLE: 2 starters go down, and you're replacing them the best you can. Might be a rough game or two when a long man might be needed.

I know the game has changed over the last 20 years from starters who go 6 and 7, sometimes 8, to guys going 5-6, and sometimes 7. And the pen has gone from 5 or 6 guys to 8...but that's still EIGHT guys in your pen these days. And you can't find a couple who can throw 2 innings every few days??

Last season, Sands sat on the bench for as long as 10-12 days without appearing in a game. Now, I'm sure he loved being with the Twins, as well as collecting service time, but that is a horrible way to fill a roster spot. The Twins basically played with a 25 man roster at times, when everyone else had a 26 man crew. I want 8 good arms that I like and trust and don't feel bad about putting in to a game. And again, I should be able to find a couple of them that can throw 2 innings every few days without compromising them or the rest of the pen.

If my rotation is bad, or so shallow, that I have to have a long man in the pen because I actually EXPECT some 3 and 4 IP games on any kind of regular basis...think Archer a couple years ago...then I have a much larger issue than this particular debate.

Having a long guy sitting in the pen because someone MIGHT have a really bad day or get hurt is a really poor use of resources and roster management. Especially when you will have the option of making a roster move the next day if truly necessary, say in case of injury.

I just don't see where this should really be a debate.

First, to me, 2 inning outing isn’t a long relief appearance. I’m thinking 3 1/3 or in that range….45-65 pitches. Once through the line-up. All generalities here but expectation of more than 2 innings.

I think the reason Sands sat so long & was on the roster was because they thought he was the most experienced, best, 8th guy for the Pen. They still didn’t trust he’d get guys out though. Bad situation for player & the club……this year there are plenty of arms/bodies to choose from……..assuming guys are pitching effectively.

[JD-TWINS]

5 hours ago, DocBauer said:

OK, first of all, you can change the usage of your pen the entire season depending on needs, so I don't know that there's a single, correct answer. EXAMPLE: 2 starters go down, and you're replacing them the best you can. Might be a rough game or two when a long man might be needed.

I know the game has changed over the last 20 years from starters who go 6 and 7, sometimes 8, to guys going 5-6, and sometimes 7. And the pen has gone from 5 or 6 guys to 8...but that's still EIGHT guys in your pen these days. And you can't find a couple who can throw 2 innings every few days??

Last season, Sands sat on the bench for as long as 10-12 days without appearing in a game. Now, I'm sure he loved being with the Twins, as well as collecting service time, but that is a horrible way to fill a roster spot. The Twins basically played with a 25 man roster at times, when everyone else had a 26 man crew. I want 8 good arms that I like and trust and don't feel bad about putting in to a game. And again, I should be able to find a couple of them that can throw 2 innings every few days without compromising them or the rest of the pen.

If my rotation is bad, or so shallow, that I have to have a long man in the pen because I actually EXPECT some 3 and 4 IP games on any kind of regular basis...think Archer a couple years ago...then I have a much larger issue than this particular debate.

Having a long guy sitting in the pen because someone MIGHT have a really bad day or get hurt is a really poor use of resources and roster management. Especially when you will have the option of making a roster move the next day if truly necessary, say in case of injury.

I just don't see where this should really be a debate.

Having a long guy, with 7 other more specific role guys, allows the Team to rest 2/3 of relievers in a night. i.e. Ober goes 5 1/3 and it’s 2-2………..Thielbar or whoever comes in and gets out of inning. Long guy goes 6th-8th……if ahead Duran comes in for the 9th. If they are down, somebody gets an inning of work in the 9th. Jax/Stewart/Topa/whoever get the night off. Seems there is value in this approach.

Probably more likely if they are up 3 or down 2-3 runs. In a tight game the Team probably uses all high leverage guys.

[DocBauer]

1 hour ago, JD-TWINS said:

Having a long guy, with 7 other more specific role guys, allows the Team to rest 2/3 of relievers in a night. i.e. Ober goes 5 1/3 and it’s 2-2………..Thielbar or whoever comes in and gets out of inning. Long guy goes 6th-8th……if ahead Duran comes in for the 9th. If they are down, somebody gets an inning of work in the 9th. Jax/Stewart/Topa/whoever get the night off. Seems there is value in this approach.

Probably more likely if they are up 3 or down 2-3 runs. In a tight game the Team probably uses all high leverage guys.

Well reasoned. I don't dispute your thoughts at all. In fact, in the past, I've advocated for an 8th man who could eat innings. It's not a bad idea/tactic at all.

To perhaps be more clear, I want a 5 man rotation where you feel most every single night you're going to get at least 5 IP, and 6 pretty often. The rotation did that last year. Even with a step down this season, I don't know that the Twins won't have that this season as well. Based on that fact, I'd rather have a better arm to call on whenever I need him. Again, if 2 pen arms aren't available one day, you've still got 6 guys you can throw in a game, and don't have a questionable guy who's only there for what I call loosely an "emergency" appearance.

Now, there have been plenty of years where the Twins really NEEDED that long, fill in arm. And I thought they needed one. Just a couple seasons ago in fact. 

But as of now, I don't believe the Twins are in the position to need that long arm. So I want the best 8 guys I can have in the pen to have the best pen I can have nightly, which is all the better when you have a couple guys who are "out" for a night.

[Craig Arko]

Sparingly?

[arby58]

12 hours ago, Dman said:

That is the first year he threw that many innings. 1 out of about 5 and he needed a long break at the end of the season to get there. I guess if you feel that is a good ratio or that he will never have any arm issues then that is fine don't include him.  To me he has a history of breaking down and one year doesn't mean everything is necessarily all good. I'd still have a contingency plan for at least one if not two of Paddack, Descla and Ober.

Every pitcher just getting started in major league baseball is going to have 'the first year he threw that many innings.' When you put up the stat line he did last year, there is no way he is part of a house of cards.

[Dman]

29 minutes ago, arby58 said:

Every pitcher just getting started in major league baseball is going to have 'the first year he threw that many innings.' When you put up the stat line he did last year, there is no way he is part of a house of cards.

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.  I am not saying Ober or Descla or Paddack aren't good pitcher's with good stats lines.  That had nothing to do with my comment at all.  I am saying all three have more injury risk than say guys that have had two or three or four years without major injury.  I am saying it would be prudent to build extra depth because the odds are not in your favor of all of them making it a full season.  Yeah Ober made it all season last year for the first time and maybe he will repeat that this year, but can you bank on that given his injury history?  I wouldn't.  

 I get that any pitcher can go down at anytime in any season so there is always risk.  I just think the risk is even greater once a track record of injury is established.  Those three have a track record of injury thus my house of cards comment. The rotation as configured could all come crashing down. One outcome is none of them are injured the entire year and they all pitch 180 innings and the house of cards stands.  Another scenario is all three get injured and you are hoping Varland, Canterino and SWR can step in and take those innings unless they maybe sign one more guy to add a bit more veteran depth.

Obviously you don't see that type of risk and that is fine.  That is your opinion and you could be right and I could be wrong.  For me after what happened last year with the team trying to use inexperienced guys like Sands, Moran, Winder, Balazovich, and Headrick things didn't work out well with them in the pen.  You had to figure one of those guys would step up and work out, but none on them did.  Depending on guys that haven't proven themselves can backfire.  Granted I have quite a bit of faith in Varland and Canterino has been dominant when healthy like Ober was when he was in the Minors so I like their chances, but Varland struggled last year he might struggle again.  We have no idea how Canterino's arm will hold up.  Prielipp came to camp healthy after his TJ and two game in was done for the season again. So I don't want to bank on hope. I want as much proven depth as I can manage and there will be time to work in the young guys and see how they do.  I think we just see risk differently and that's OK.

[arby58]

14 minutes ago, Dman said:

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.  I am not saying Ober or Descla or Paddack aren't good pitcher's with good stats lines.  That had nothing to do with my comment at all.  I am saying all three have more injury risk than say guys that have had two or three or four years without major injury.  I am saying it would be prudent to build extra depth because the odds are not in your favor of all of them making it a full season.  Yeah Ober made it all season last year for the first time and maybe he will repeat that this year, but can you bank on that given his injury history?  I wouldn't. 

What about Ober suggests he has 'more injury risk than say guys that have had two or three or four years without a major injury?' He wasn't on the IL last year for an injury. For that matter, when Kenta Maeda blew out his elbow, he would have been one of those pitchers who had 'two or three or four years without a major injury.' Suggesting Ober is part of the 'house of cards' is unwarranted.