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

[mark sills]

9 minutes ago, JD-TWINS said:

There aren’t 3 other guys around to take innings that Team doesn’t want Festa - SWR or anyone else to throw. WHO “spot starts” on Tuesday & Wednesday to push guys back?

The All-star break ended 17 days ago!!! There was a 5 day break PLUS the usual 5 days of rest for each guy.

At this point, there are 2 rookies in the 3-4 spots in the rotation and Varland is squarely in the mix as the 5th guy for the next month……..Matthews almost certainly has to start Tuesday since none of the other 4 guys will be rested.

Fingers crossed that Paddack & Ryan can be available again in a month!

Andrew Morris is on the same schedule as Ryan. He may of passed Mathews on who should be the next man up.

[Road trip]

42 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

 

This is the time for the hitters to step forward with a much more sustained attack mode. If the bats are going to score 2-3 runs a game, then the Twins may be in trouble. I am expecting a better approach at the plate across the board. Only Castro and Santana are among the top 100 in baseball with ABs. The position players should be fresh enough to pick up the slack for the pitching staff.

I can accept the need to rest pitchers and limit innings because pitching styles have evolved (more spin, max velocity).

I have a much harder time accepting the substantial rest days for all of the hitters when they are healthy.  Castro and Santana are the only Twins that are pretty certain to surpass the 400 AB mark this year (Kepler might).  The 1991 Twins had every starter surpass this mark except for Pagliarulo, who was platooning with Leius.... and most of the starters blew way past 400 ABs.  This was in an era when weight lifting and training was in its infancy, "nutrition" was whatever they felt like eating, and postgame beers in the clubhouse were a standard practice.  Heck, most of the players on that team were in their early 30s, and they still managed the daily grind just fine and continued to play for many more years.

I'm not blaming the individual players here, as it isn't their decision.  However I do wonder about how training methods are leading to all of these injuries, and the resulting belief that 5 games a week is all a position player can handle.

[JD-TWINS]

1 minute ago, mark sills said:

Andrew Morris is on the same schedule as Ryan. He may of passed Mathews on who should be the next man up.

He’s in AA, I believe. That’s like calling up a Jr. off the Legion Team to start for the Gophers - Matthews has 18K’s in 14 innings at AAA. He’s gotten knocked around but also has about 9-10 good innings out of his 14. They both need to mature and gain experience - Matthews is squarely ahead of Morris - still maybe not near ready - but ahead of Morris.

[JD-TWINS]

2 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

I see this list as just the beginning.  How about Varland stepping up now?  Can Wallner keep destroying baseballs?  Can Kepler have a second half like last year?  Can Duran become the best closer again?  Can we have a good Thielbar again?  Is there another RP we can put in the BP (not the guy we traded for)?  Can Lewis stay healthy, can Buxton stay healthy, can Correa get healthy?  Can Lee take the next step and show why he is rated so high?  Will Lopez be a number 1 or number 3 SP?  Will Ober keep up his pitching and move to number one or fade as the season progresses?  Can Varland, Zebby, Festa, Richardson give us the starts we need to finish the season?  Will Rocco stop using Margot as a PH?  Can Larnach continue his MLB rise in production?  Can Miranda recover from the HBP recovery - the same thing that ruined Mauer and Morneau? Can Castro stay an all-star?  Can Margot, Santana, Vasquez continue to produce or will they revert to what they were to start the season?  Will the BP suffer from overuse?

SIXTEEN questions & that’s combining a few variables into one question……big UPHILL climb.

Miranda seems fine ….3-5 one game & line drive double v. Cubs. Playing solid defense as well.

Can they keep winning games? ….my synopsis.

They need some youthful pitchers to step up & they nearly have to assume Ober & Lopez will pitch well to have any success over the next month. Pressure cooker has been increased for those two.

Topa & Henriquez are RH relievers.

Health - health - health …..that answers a lot of the issues & questions raised above….we’ll all need to be patient for that to unfold.

[JD-TWINS]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

There was a week-long break for the All-Star Game not even a month ago. I understand the need for recovery but total innings pitched is a bad way to measure fatigue.

Agreed.

SEVENTEEN days ago they started playing again - the pitchers got a 5 day break PLUS their normal 5 day rest. I don’t understand fatigue talk at this point - September 8th - then maybe a real issue?

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Nolan Ryan as a selling point on workloads and Greg Maddux success as a selling point for not needing velocity are my biggest pet peeves in pitching discussions. Picking the absolute best ever, complete outlier and saying "see, people can do it" is so ridiculous to me.

Focusing on Nolan Ryan as some sort of workload unicorn is my pet peeve.

Starting pitchers routinely threw 200 plus innings/year for decades. 250+ if they stayed healthy.

And lots of them DID stay healthy. At least as many as do now, and I'd argue more than now. And it's not like they were less effective. Hell, MLB had to lower the mound in 1969 to get more offense into the game. 

Baseball needs to start moving back to having pitchers pitch. The current model isn't doing a single solitary thing leading to better health. All they're doing is intentionally getting less and less from their pitchers. 

[chpettit19]

12 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Focusing on Nolan Ryan as some sort of workload unicorn is my pet peeve.

Starting pitchers routinely threw 200 plus innings/year for decades. 250+ if they stayed healthy.

And lots of them DID stay healthy. At least as many as do now, and I'd argue more than now. And it's not like they were less effective. Hell, MLB had to lower the mound in 1969 to get more offense into the game. 

Baseball needs to start moving back to having pitchers pitch. The current model isn't doing a single solitary thing leading to better health. All they're doing is intentionally getting less and less from their pitchers. 

But not at that velocity. Ryan is different because he was throwing far harder than everyone else was back then. And the science is pretty clear now that velocity is the leading issue with arm injuries. That's why he's pointed at. Because he was the closest in velocity to the guys throwing today and still threw far larger workloads. He's an absolute outlier. Not the only one, but the one most often pointed at. 

MLB is never going back. It just isn't happening. The disadvantage you'd put yourself at by having your pitchers not maximize their "stuff" would get you fired so fast. They don't care about the health of their pitchers. They care about the best chances to get outs. From there they see how long you can go getting those outs. It's never going back. Whether it should doesn't matter. Isn't ever happening.

[USAFChief]

12 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

But not at that velocity. Ryan is different because he was throwing far harder than everyone else was back then. And the science is pretty clear now that velocity is the leading issue with arm injuries. That's why he's pointed at. Because he was the closest in velocity to the guys throwing today and still threw far larger workloads. 

MLB is never going back. It just isn't happening. The disadvantage you'd put yourself at by having your pitchers not maximize their "stuff" would get you fired so fast. They don't care about the health of their pitchers. They care about the best chances to get outs. From there they see how long you can go getting those outs. It's never going back. Whether it should doesn't matter. Isn't ever happening.

Can you point me to that science?

 

As for getting outs, 

I'm not sure what you think is happening, but teams have always gotten 27 outs. The object is to prevent runs.

And current pitching ain't preventing runs at any kind of rate better than history. 

Here's MLB ERA going back:

2023: 4.10

2013: 3.86

2003: 4.39

1993: 4.18

1983: 3.86

1973: 3.74

1964: 3.46

If anything, ERA is gradually going up, not down.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/pitch.shtml

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, USAFChief said:

Can you point me to that science?

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36649827/#:~:text=Faster ball velocity was positively,0354).

https://www.drivelinebaseball.com/2019/03/injury-risk-performance-velocity/

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5400454/2024/04/09/mlb-pitching-injuries-velocity-pitch-clock-fact-fiction/

There's more if you'd like. It's really not a question anymore. Higher velocity, on every pitch type, is directly correlated to arm injuries.

[chpettit19]

10 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Can you point me to that science?

 

As for getting outs, 

I'm not sure what you think is happening, but teams have always gotten 27 outs. The object is to prevent runs.

And current pitching ain't preventing runs at any kind of restrictions better tha history. 

Here's MLB ERA going back:

2023: 4.10

2013: 3.86

2003: 4.39

1993: 4.18

1983: 3.86

1973: 3.74

1964: 3.46

If anything, ERA is gradually going up, not down.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/pitch.shtml

Would the guys from 1964 have a 3.46 ERA against the hitters in 2024? The league will always be in a general range because they design it to be that way (change mound heights, hitters faced requirements, etc.) and because hitters adapt to pitchers and pitchers adapt to hitters.

The better hitters get the better pitchers have to get. And the better pitchers get the better hitters have to get. If you are throwing the same kind of "stuff" to today's hitters that the guys in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. were throwing you aren't going to be successful. Because the hitters have already figured that out. You have to continue to improve or you'll be left behind. Welcome to human evolution. 

[USAFChief]

10 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36649827/#:~:text=Faster ball velocity was positively,0354).

https://www.drivelinebaseball.com/2019/03/injury-risk-performance-velocity/

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5400454/2024/04/09/mlb-pitching-injuries-velocity-pitch-clock-fact-fiction/

There's more if you'd like. It's really not a question anymore. Higher velocity, on every pitch type, is directly correlated to arm injuries.

I can't read the Athletic article, but the Driveline clearly doesn't state what you claim.

[USAFChief]

1 minute ago, chpettit19 said:

Would the guys from 1964 have a 3.46 ERA against the hitters in 2024? The league will always be in a general range because they design it to be that way (change mound heights, hitters faced requirements, etc.) and because hitters adapt to pitchers and pitchers adapt to hitters.

The better hitters get the better pitchers have to get. And the better pitchers get the better hitters have to get. If you are throwing the same kind of "stuff" to today's hitters that the guys in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. were throwing you aren't going to be successful. Because the hitters have already figured that out. You have to continue to improve or you'll be left behind. Welcome to human evolution. 

I'm going to continue to believe Tony Oliva could hit in 1967 and he could hit in 2024. 

If he wasn't 80 years old of course.

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I'm going to continue to believe Tony Oliva could hit in 1967 and he could hit in 2024. 

If he wasn't 80 years old of course.

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.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Linus said:

For sure Falvey could have done things differently but his parameters were dictated by payroll cuts.  Our surplus was at second base -  I wanted to trade Julien and a prospect to get one of Seattles starters. They had to trade Polanco to save the money and they screw that up. I’m not absolving Falvey of anything but the payroll cuts have been a huge factor in everything the Twins have done or not done since last season. 

I wanted them to get one of the Mariners starters as well.  Many other teams wanted to get their SPs too.  Seattle wanted to keep them and the only way to get them was a huge overpay.  The Twins and every other team looking for pitching were not willing to pay what Seattle was asking.  These arguments get made every year as if teams have to do what we want.

What if they would have kept Polanco and signed Hoskins like so many here insisted would be a huge difference maker.  We would be worse had they spent the money in that fashion.  There were also quite a few people that said trade Polanco and dump Farmer if necessary to get another SP.  That could have been done within the allotted budget so money was not the difference between success and failure.  They could have signed Flaherty or Lugo with the budget they had to work with.

[chpettit19]

19 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I can't read the Athletic article, but the Driveline clearly doesn't state what you claim.

Really?

"What we know

Velocity is seen as a risk factor for injury, but it’s not the only one.

It’s assumed that velocity is a risk factor for injury because increased velocity comes with increased elbow torque

New research shows that pitchers who throw at similar velocities likely won’t be experiencing the same elbow torque (mechanics play a role).

New research also shows that as a pitcher throws harder, he’ll likely to be experiencing higher elbow torque.

Velocity is a beneficial piece to performing well.

What we don’t know: The exact relationship between injury and torque."

They list 6 studies showing velocity is directly linked to injuries. State themselves ("Therefore, we can conclude that velocity is still an injury risk factor") that velocity is an injury risk factor. But because they say there's also other factors (I don't believe I claimed it was the only factor, but if you want to pin your stance on me saying it's the "leading factor" go for it) then velocity being an important part of Ryan's success and it making him an outlier from his peers is wrong? Weird take considering the conclusion part of the article I quoted above literally says velocity is a risk factor and is a beneficial piece to performing well.

I'll take back the word "leading" in my other statement if that makes you feel better. But the science, from multiple sources, shows a statistically significant correlation between velocity and injuries. And velocity and improved performance. You know, the 2 things I've claimed on this thread. Driveline's argument isn't that velocity isn't a risk factor, it's that the extra velocity causes extra torque and that's what's causing injuries to players with bad mechanics. The extra velocity is still part of their equation. "New research also shows that as a pitcher throws harder, he’ll likely to be experiencing higher elbow torque."

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Road trip said:

I can accept the need to rest pitchers and limit innings because pitching styles have evolved (more spin, max velocity).

I have a much harder time accepting the substantial rest days for all of the hitters when they are healthy.  Castro and Santana are the only Twins that are pretty certain to surpass the 400 AB mark this year (Kepler might).  The 1991 Twins had every starter surpass this mark except for Pagliarulo, who was platooning with Leius.... and most of the starters blew way past 400 ABs.  This was in an era when weight lifting and training was in its infancy, "nutrition" was whatever they felt like eating, and postgame beers in the clubhouse were a standard practice.  Heck, most of the players on that team were in their early 30s, and they still managed the daily grind just fine and continued to play for many more years.

I'm not blaming the individual players here, as it isn't their decision.  However I do wonder about how training methods are leading to all of these injuries, and the resulting belief that 5 games a week is all a position player can handle.

I hope that the players are taking the off day to keep up on their conditioning and strength training. That was something overlooked during the 1980s.

[DJL44]

38 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I'm going to continue to believe Tony Oliva could hit in 1967 and he could hit in 2024. 

I buy this. I don't think the best players are necessarily getting that much better. It's the worst pitchers and hitters that are better than what we saw previously. The standard deviation in talent is smaller today than it was then. Considering the amount of talent available, we are long overdue for expansion.

Defense is another story. With fewer balls in play, grass fields and less foul territory we are seeing players selected more for offense than for defense. Mark Belanger doesn't get playing time in 2024.

[USAFChief]

3 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I buy this. I don't think the best players are necessarily getting that much better. It's the worst pitchers and hitters that are better than what we saw previously. The standard deviation in talent is smaller today than it was then. Considering the amount of talent available, we are long overdue for expansion.

Defense is another story. With fewer balls in play, grass fields and less foul territory we are seeing players selected more for offense than for defense. Mark Belanger doesn't get playing time in 2024.

I think that's mostly true.

I certainly agree teams place much less value on defense today.

It also, to me, points out the problems of using WAR as a measure of ability. Belanger has 41 career bWAR.

[Doctor Gast]

I wasn't going to comment on Jeffers but I'm going to anyway. Catching is a very grueling position, many never make it on the MLB level. Jeffers is a very good-hitting MLB catcher but he has to work very hard at being an average defensive catcher. He hasn't proved to me yet that he has what it takes to be a primary catcher especially having the necessary stamina. What concerns me most is when he wears down his hitting & especially his defense takes a hit. IMO it'd be beneficial for Jeffers if they'd dial back his catching especially as Vazquez appears to be hitting better the longer he plays. Another thing that really bothers me is the lack of depth behind these guys.

[Riverbrian]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

With 20/20 hindsight they should have traded BOTH Polanco and Julien and given the job to Willi Castro.

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. 

[bean5302]

3 hours ago, Linus said:

They were forced to trade Polanco to free up payroll. As we learned that trade chip wasn’t going to bring in a good starter so we got DeScalfini. They were never going to sign a free agent starter. 

Or maybe they traded Polanco because he was in decline and they had better players on the roster already, as a side effect they expected to save some cash. Falvey made a bad deal after picking up a team option. That's not the Pohlad's fault.

Falvey had a number of options on how to spend his financial assets. There were 4 potential contracts on the books he could have chosen to delete. None of these players have added major value this year.
Vazquez $10MM
Kepler $10.0MM (Team Option)
-Polanco $10.5MM (Team Option)
Farmer $6.25MM (Arb3)

Subtracted from Polanco savings, all of nearly zero value this year.
+Desclafani $4.0MM
+Topa $1.25MM
+Okert $1.06MM

Other acquisitions
+Santana +$5.25MM
+Margot $4.0MM 

Neither Santana nor Margot are better than the players they blocked (Miranda & Martin). That's nearly $50MM in expenditures which could have been spent differently if Falvey felt the Pohlad's salary limits required adjustments to the roster. 

I blame the Pohlads for the trade deadline, not the $130MM opening day payroll.

[bean5302]

I suppose back on topic, if Ryan misses significant time, you'd have to assume it's either Varland or Matthews who has to take his rotation spot. I'm skeptical either one of them is MLB rotation worthy right now. We're already in a dicey spot with SWR's innings and Festa in the rotation.

[Fatbat]

Next man up. Thats why you have a pitching pipeline full of Young talent. Varland should get his chance (again) Festa may be settling in.  SWR needs to bring some lights out consistency. Dobnak should get a spot start sometime and throw in some guy named Trevor Bauer 🤷🏼‍♂️

[Mike Sixel]

5 hours ago, twinfan said:

I don't buy this "innings" talk about pitchers. If you are a good pitcher, it should not matter how many innings was your longest previous season. Woods-Richardson has been mediocre for most of the season and it's difficult to imagine him being much better- no matter how many innings he pitches. Varland (to me) has been over-rated in what we expected of him. Festa finally showed what he is capable of doing and hopefully can come close to that over his next 4-5 starts. Should they start Dobnack if Ryan is out for a few weeks. Ryan seems to get weaker in the second half so maybe a break- even due to an injury- could help down the stretch. Is there a waiver starter available as a stopgap? Is there another minor leaguer who can step in for a couple of starts? 

The injured hitters need to return and be productive or it won't matter what the pitching looks like. Yes it was frustrating to not see us pick up a starter but we have kept our main corps for now. The weekend will be a big one but Cleveland hasn't been playing well so maybe we can take the series in close games. Just don't let them have the lead in the ninth cause Classe is the GOTT (greatest of this time).

Mediocre? He has an ERA under 4. What exactly is your definition of good in this era of baseball? Wowsers. 

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Focusing on Nolan Ryan as some sort of workload unicorn is my pet peeve.

Starting pitchers routinely threw 200 plus innings/year for decades. 250+ if they stayed healthy.

And lots of them DID stay healthy. At least as many as do now, and I'd argue more than now. And it's not like they were less effective. Hell, MLB had to lower the mound in 1969 to get more offense into the game. 

Baseball needs to start moving back to having pitchers pitch. The current model isn't doing a single solitary thing leading to better health. All they're doing is intentionally getting less and less from their pitchers. 

that's because you don't remember the ones that flamed out, because they flamed out.

[Mike Sixel]

On hitters and rest:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/dear-hitters-its-okay-to-take-a-break/

 

[USAFChief]

Just now, Mike Sixel said:

that's because you don't remember the ones that flamed out, because they flamed out.

Lots flamed out.

I don't think it's any more than today.

[TwinsDr2021]

15 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

that's because you don't remember the ones that flamed out, because they flamed out.

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

[TwinsDr2021]

20 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Mediocre? He has an ERA under 4. What exactly is your definition of good in this era of baseball? Wowsers. 

For the whole season he hasn't been Mediocre he has been a pleasant (dare I say amazing) surprise, and helped the Twins save the season after their start. But if we are being honestly he has been mediocre in just under half his starts (I am not being negative or taking anything away from him by saying that) He just needs to keep building on what he is doing. I like SWR his change up can be amazing, and when he is on there aren't all that many 5 inning pitchers better than him.

[Schmoeman5]

5 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?

So I just randomly looked at 3 teams from the past. 68 Tigers 69 Orioles. They both had 4 pitchers over 180 innings. With 6 of them going over 200 and 1 who pitched over 300 innings. They both played in the WS. So then I went to the other end and picked what is considered one of the worst teams in history. The 62 Mets had 3 pitchers well over 200 innings. So it wasn't just Nolan Ryan. It was expected. There's the famous Spahn vs Marichal game where Spahn who was in his 40s battled Marichal for 15 innings I believe.