In Wake of Joe Ryan Injury, Which Other Twins Carry Workload Concerns?

[jkcarew]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

You can believe what you want. If you believe athletes haven't gotten better in 55 years more power to you, I guess. I mean every world record being broken time and time again would disagree. But you do you, my man. But this is a nice way to circle back to the original point that pointing at individual, extreme outliers, isn't a good way to look at things.

The average major league pitcher today would absolutely dominate MLB in 1967. Could Oliva and some others get some hits off them? Of course. But a guy throwing in the mid-90s with more spin and break than just about any pitch anybody was throwing in '67 would blow people away. It's why there are extreme outliers. It's why Gibson was so dominant. Why Ryan was. Why Chapman was when he first arrived. They were simply throwing such advanced stuff that hitters couldn't hit it. Then more and more hitters adapted and pitchers adapted back. They all improved. It's the nature of human advancement. Not sure why it's a controversial take to suggest athletes have improved significantly over time.

But, pitching and hitting at a world class level is more skill than athleticism. Always has been and is still so today, albeit maybe to a somewhat lesser extent. 

The primary reason today’s pitchers have more velo and spin is that they are only expected to pitch at max effort for 5-7 innings or 100 pitches…usually less. In 1967 they were paid to go 7-9 innings regardless of number of pitches. They were expected to throw 250-300+ innings a year. They paced themselves by necessity…for fatigue and also to ensure they could get to the next contract, because there were no single contracts that provided multigenerational wealth or even generational wealth.

The primary reason today’s hitters have more power is that they aren’t expected to put the ball in play nearly as regularly as 1967 hitters were.

Are today’s players better. Sure. But, IMO, not nearly to the degree you seem to suggest.

[Mike Sixel]

51 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Is a good thing none flame out now, because the Twins need a couple.

no one said that, but thanks?

[USAFChief]

9 minutes ago, jkcarew said:

But, pitching and hitting at a world class level is more skill than athleticism. Always has been and is still so today, albeit maybe to a somewhat lesser extent. 

The primary reason today’s pitchers have more velo and spin is that they are only expected to pitch at max effort for 5-7 innings or 100 pitches…usually less. In 1967 they were paid to go 7-9 innings regardless of number of pitches. They were expected to throw 250-300+ innings a year. They paced themselves by necessity…for fatigue and also to ensure they could get to the next contract, because there were not single contracts providing multigenerational wealth.

The primary reason today’s hitters have more power is that they aren’t expected to put the ball in play nearly as regularly as 1967 hitters were.

Are today’s players better. Sure. But, IMO, not nearly to the degree you seem to suggest.

The hitters of past eras would also have grown up, and learned to hit, in a higher velo environment. 

They'd hit today.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

This is a beautiful post. One sentence and right on point. 

Hindsight is the key word to me. It shows that I don't know, You don't know, All the Fans don't know and most importantly the front office doesn't know. 

Using hindsight... Willi Castro was the choice for 2B all along.

In the offseason when the roster was constructed... Castro was barely a consideration.

It was Julien and Farmer as the 2B platoon with Castro available for 2B along with many other positions.

The front office certainly didn't know that Julien would be sent down to the minors when they traded Polanco. They certainly didn't know that Farmer would crash to the point of little bits of Glass Farmer lying on the floor when they traded Polanco and I assume that they didn't know that Jorge Polanco was going to struggle as badly as he has in Seattle this year when they were able to get a top 100 prospect in return for him. 

They probably assumed in the off-season that Brooks Lee would be called up at some point this year but preceded to give him a grand total of 9 innings at 2B in St. Paul so it's not like they were lining him up to be insurance at 2B and they probably knew that his debut had a chance of starting out below average like it has. Martin didn't get a lot of prep work in 2024 at 2B either. Just 3 games for a total 26 innings. He was spending his time in the OF.   

I say these things not to attack the front office. I say these things to illustrate how difficult it is to predict the bouncing ball of major league performance and all 30 front offices miss in this fashion ALL THE TIME. 

Injuries and disappointing performance happens every single year and they these things lay waste tot he best laid plans... so I laugh at the mention of a log jam. 26 guys WHO CAN PLAY is what I will always ask for. Cull from the bottom until the bottom is raised. 

I recognize that Polanco has been a disappointment this year. But... I'm not going to use hindsight and apply it to what I was thinking in the off-season. When Polanco was traded... I questioned the logic of it. I felt he was a pretty consistent major league hitter that didn't need to be platooned. It's August now... I still question that logic even after review of his current performance because they didn't pull a fast one on Seattle. They bargained with Seattle like he was a pretty consistent major league hitter that didn't need to be platooned and Seattle traded players in return that suggest that they though he was a pretty consistent major league hitter that didn't need to be platooned. 

Anyway... Great Post... It simply says what needs to be said. If the Front office had this evaluation thing down to a science. Castro would have been named the starting 2B on Day one and Julien would have started in St. Paul. 

They knew they had Castro and Lee if Julien / Farmer did not work.  It was the depth of alternatives that made moving Polanco less risky and every analyst that commented stated this in some form or another as did many TD posters.

[chpettit19]

43 minutes ago, jkcarew said:

But, pitching and hitting at a world class level is more skill than athleticism. Always has been and is still so today, albeit maybe to a somewhat lesser extent. 

The primary reason today’s pitchers have more velo and spin is that they are only expected to pitch at max effort for 5-7 innings or 100 pitches…usually less. In 1967 they were paid to go 7-9 innings regardless of number of pitches. They were expected to throw 250-300+ innings a year. They paced themselves by necessity…for fatigue and also to ensure they could get to the next contract, because there were no single contracts that provided multigenerational wealth or even generational wealth.

The primary reason today’s hitters have more power is that they aren’t expected to put the ball in play nearly as regularly as 1967 hitters were.

Are today’s players better. Sure. But, IMO, not nearly to the degree you seem to suggest.

You don't think it takes great athleticism to be able to throw 100 MPH? Or even 90 MPH? You don't think it takes great athleticism to swing a bat fast enough to catch up to 100 MPH? Or even 90 MPH? This idea that baseball isn't about athleticism doesn't make sense to me. Hand eye coordination is athleticism. The average person doesn't have the same hand eye coordination, ability to whip their arm through at the necessary speed, or ability to swing a bat at the necessary speed. How is throwing a baseball 100 MPH skill and not athleticism? How is controlling your arm to be able to repeat your delivery, or swing, time and time again not athleticism? What "skill" are the players losing as they get older that stops them from being as good? Is it not athleticism? Is it not that their bodies simply can't move in the ways it needs to anymore? It takes athleticism to make the minor tweaks needed to reach the majors. Body control is athleticism. Running fast and jumping high aren't all that makes up athleticism. Tiger Woods probably can't run that fast or jump that high, but to have the "skill" to hit a golf ball like he did took great athleticism. Steph Curry isn't overly fast and doesn't jump that high, but he's so incredibly athletic that he can repeat his shot mechanics over and over. Skill is just a code word for athleticism that isn't running fast or jumping high. Body control (what most of baseball is) is absolutely athleticism. The "skill" that the major leaguers have that none of us do is that their bodies can do things ours can't. That's athleticism.

There is absolutely a change in approach. We'll just have to agree to disagree that guys didn't throw harder or have more break back in the day mostly because of innings, though. The "necessity" in getting another contract was being good. If the argument is that the guys simply didn't have to try as hard on the mound to be good back then I'm simply not going to buy it. What effort level were they putting in? 50%? 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%? If the pitchers were only putting in 60% effort and still getting hitters out it's not a great sign for the hitters being able to succeed today. Or were the pitchers actually giving more like 90% effort and that's why they had to lower the mound in '69? If the pitchers were giving 90% effort and still not even touching the average fastball today is that not evidence that the average player today is simply more talented?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that players back then simply weren't trying that hard. Were they max effort all the time? Of course not. But let's not pretend they were going at 70% effort or something. The average fastball now was the max fastball in the 70s. That's not just effort levels, sorry. And starting pitchers today still pace themselves. It's why when guys shift to the pen they are able to add velocity. Joe Ryan isn't throwing max effort, but he's still throwing 94. Players are simply better now. Because they're more athletic.

[karcherd]

They need to focus on playing their best players every game with an occasional game off.  This is what the winning teams do.  Texas had 8 players with over 400 AB's last year and Houston had 6 the year before and they were so wore down at the end of the year they won the World Series.  Santana and Castro lead the team in AB's and they are not the best players, they are switch hitters, that is why they lead the team in AB's.  Castro has had a good season but should not be leading the team in AB's.   Stop overthinking every line up and every match up and put your best players in the lineup and let them play.  And if they aren't good enough to win games with, get better players.  That should be the goal, not rostering a player because he can hit LH's at a little above league average.

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

 

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/08/rich-hill-to-throw-for-interested-clubs-on-friday.html

 

[jkcarew]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

You don't think it takes great athleticism to be able to throw 100 MPH? Or even 90 MPH? You don't think it takes great athleticism to swing a bat fast enough to catch up to 100 MPH? Or even 90 MPH? This idea that baseball isn't about athleticism doesn't make sense to me. Hand eye coordination is athleticism. The average person doesn't have the same hand eye coordination, ability to whip their arm through at the necessary speed, or ability to swing a bat at the necessary speed. How is throwing a baseball 100 MPH skill and not athleticism? How is controlling your arm to be able to repeat your delivery, or swing, time and time again not athleticism? What "skill" are the players losing as they get older that stops them from being as good? Is it not athleticism? Is it not that their bodies simply can't move in the ways it needs to anymore? It takes athleticism to make the minor tweaks needed to reach the majors. Body control is athleticism. Running fast and jumping high aren't all that makes up athleticism. Tiger Woods probably can't run that fast or jump that high, but to have the "skill" to hit a golf ball like he did took great athleticism. Steph Curry isn't overly fast and doesn't jump that high, but he's so incredibly athletic that he can repeat his shot mechanics over and over. Skill is just a code word for athleticism that isn't running fast or jumping high. Body control (what most of baseball is) is absolutely athleticism. The "skill" that the major leaguers have that none of us do is that their bodies can do things ours can't. That's athleticism.

There is absolutely a change in approach. We'll just have to agree to disagree that guys didn't throw harder or have more break back in the day mostly because of innings, though. The "necessity" in getting another contract was being good. If the argument is that the guys simply didn't have to try as hard on the mound to be good back then I'm simply not going to buy it. What effort level were they putting in? 50%? 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%? If the pitchers were only putting in 60% effort and still getting hitters out it's not a great sign for the hitters being able to succeed today. Or were the pitchers actually giving more like 90% effort and that's why they had to lower the mound in '69? If the pitchers were giving 90% effort and still not even touching the average fastball today is that not evidence that the average player today is simply more talented?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that players back then simply weren't trying that hard. Were they max effort all the time? Of course not. But let's not pretend they were going at 70% effort or something. The average fastball now was the max fastball in the 70s. That's not just effort levels, sorry. And starting pitchers today still pace themselves. It's why when guys shift to the pen they are able to add velocity. Joe Ryan isn't throwing max effort, but he's still throwing 94. Players are simply better now. Because they're more athletic.

Did I say it doesn’t take athleticism? I said the formula is more skill than athleticism…especially relative to other sports. And starting pitchers…if they pace themselves at all in the modern game…it’s way less than what pitchers had to do previously. The modern pitcher puts way more effort into each pitch and nobody really even debates that point.

Take Joe Ryan (who I love) and plunk him into 1967 and tell him if he wants a raise next year, he’ll need to make 38-39 starts throw 260+  innings and complete 12 games. Would he be good? Very, very likely. Would his fastball averages 94 mph? No, it wouldn’t. Meanwhile, athletes do not have better hand-eye coordination or higher levels of coordination to ‘repeat’ today….you’re born with that. You’re not taking Adrian Peterson and turning him into a major league hitter no matter how many hand-eye drills you have him do. The difference with the modern baseball player is he’s been born with those same gifts, and then he’s been trained to be bigger and stronger than athletes of the past.

One more word on baseball in the 1960’s…

In that era, EVERY kid that considered himself an athlete, black, white, and in between, tried to make it in baseball. Baseball was everything. The NBA, NFL/AFL…any other sport…didn’t even register in comparison. The league was absolutely loaded with great natural athletes…high school and college football stars, etc. They only lacked (on average) the size and strength of the modern players. They played a different style of baseball, but certainly the best of them would have adapted just fine to the way the game is played today.

[chpettit19]

12 hours ago, jkcarew said:

Did I say it doesn’t take athleticism? I said the formula is more skill than athleticism…especially relative to other sports. And starting pitchers…if they pace themselves at all in the modern game…it’s way less than what pitchers had to do previously. The modern pitcher puts way more effort into each pitch and nobody really even debates that point.

Take Joe Ryan (who I love) and plunk him into 1967 and tell him if he wants a raise next year, he’ll need to make 38-39 starts throw 260+  innings and complete 12 games. Would he be good? Very, very likely. Would his fastball averages 94 mph? No, it wouldn’t. Meanwhile, athletes do not have better hand-eye coordination or higher levels of coordination to ‘repeat’ today….you’re born with that. You’re not taking Adrian Peterson and turning him into a major league hitter no matter how many hand-eye drills you have him do. The difference with the modern baseball player is he’s been born with those same gifts, and then he’s been trained to be bigger and stronger than athletes of the past.

One more word on baseball in the 1960’s…

In that era, EVERY kid that considered himself an athlete, black, white, and in between, tried to make it in baseball. Baseball was everything. The NBA, NFL/AFL…any other sport…didn’t even register in comparison. The league was absolutely loaded with great natural athletes…high school and college football stars, etc. They only lacked (on average) the size and strength of the modern players. They played a different style of baseball, but certainly the best of them would have adapted just fine to the way the game is played today.

Ok, then what's the difference between skill and athleticism? My point is that what you call "skill" is "athleticism." They're the same thing. They aren't different today than in the 60s? The average height of a man in the US in the 1960s was 5'8". It's now over 5'9". The average height of a male has increased by over an inch in 50 years (actually it was over an inch growth in about 40 years). You don't think the average athleticism has gone up with that? It's just our bodies growing, but not anything else improving? We aren't naturally a little stronger while growing? Guess we'll just agree to disagree on that.

1 inning closers started in the late 80s. How long did it take them to figure out they didn't have to pace themselves during those 1 inning stints? 30 years? Or do you think Eckersley figured it out pretty quick that he didn't have to pace himself and could just let it fly? Why, if they could physically do the same things as today's players, did they not all start throwing 100 right away? Pacing themselves isn't the reason, so what's the reason now?

How far down would Ryan's fastball go? Low-80s? Mid-80s? Upper-80s? 90ish? 90ish was the peak back then (with a handful of outliers a little higher). It'd be Joe (who has an average MLB fastball in 2024) dialing it back from already not 100% effort. He throws 90ish% effort now and is at 94. To drop down to 90 MPH he'd have backed down to about 85% effort. How much lower were the guys in the 60s at on the effort scale so that they were mostly all throwing in the mid-80s? Were they putting in 80% or less effort? Those hitters must not have been very good if pitchers were dominating them so much at 80% effort that they had to lower the mound. Makes it hard to argue that all those dominant athletes could figure out today's pitchers when they couldn't even hit off guys throwing 80% or less effort. 

Yes, "the best of them" could very likely adapt. But would they still be Hall of Famers today? I won't say no, but I won't say it's an obvious yes by any means. The very best pitchers they faced back then would just be average pitchers now. Would they be HoFers still? Or just average MLBers? I don't know, but humans are bigger, stronger, and faster now. Not sure why that's controversial. And since I don't know why that's controversial, I don't know why saying humans can now throw harder and swing faster is controversial. But we can just agree to disagree.

[gil4]

14 hours ago, wabene said:

Giving up already? 😂

It's a weekly thing.

[dxpavelka]

14 hours ago, DJL44 said:

People always throw out Nolan Ryan but seem to forget about the hundreds of other careers ended early.

One guy survived that kind of workload. What does that tell you?

ONE guy.  Are you brain dead or just unaware of how the game was played for a hundred years?

[SwainZag]

The comparisons on this thread are pretty crazy.  Nolan Ryan was a freak.  Rod Carew could hit at any level and in any season.  Carew could hit .300 from 1890-2024, what does that prove?  Using HOF of players to make comparisons to anything is dumb.  

I hate saying it, but any heavily arguing that players can do what guys did 40 years ago, just need to stop.  No one is pitching 250+ innings, very few players are playing 150+ games anymore.  Go ahead and call the managers out for babying, soft, etc. but it just isn't happening.  The same people arguing players should play more are the ones upset that guys are missing games on the IL.

It's a different game.  Guys who had strained this and pulled that in the 80's aren't playing in games today than they were then.  Cal Ripken probably played so many games at 50-70% and maybe less during his streak.  I think that's awesome, today's players would call that reckless.  Is Cal Ripken at 60% better than whoever backed him up at 100%?  Not only in current game but long term?  

I think we would all love it if Correa, Buxton and Lewis could play 162 at a high level, but it's not going to happen.  I wish it would!  

/rant

[dxpavelka]

6 hours ago, SwainZag said:

The comparisons on this thread are pretty crazy.  Nolan Ryan was a freak.  Rod Carew could hit at any level and in any season.  Carew could hit .300 from 1890-2024, what does that prove?  Using HOF of players to make comparisons to anything is dumb.  

I hate saying it, but any heavily arguing that players can do what guys did 40 years ago, just need to stop.  No one is pitching 250+ innings, very few players are playing 150+ games anymore.  Go ahead and call the managers out for babying, soft, etc. but it just isn't happening.  The same people arguing players should play more are the ones upset that guys are missing games on the IL.

It's a different game.  Guys who had strained this and pulled that in the 80's aren't playing in games today than they were then.  Cal Ripken probably played so many games at 50-70% and maybe less during his streak.  I think that's awesome, today's players would call that reckless.  Is Cal Ripken at 60% better than whoever backed him up at 100%?  Not only in current game but long term?  

I think we would all love it if Correa, Buxton and Lewis could play 162 at a high level, but it's not going to happen.  I wish it would!  

/rant

Totally understand that nobody's pitchiung 250+.  But freaking out about approaching 118?  C'mon man!!!!!!!!!