What Led to Rocco Baldelli's Unusual Reliever Usage in Tuesday Night's Twins Loss?

[TheLeviathan]

On 5/2/2025 at 2:44 PM, chpettit19 said:

Weird that you cut out the part where I pointed out what they did differently. And weird that you can't point out any in game strategy (because we were talking about the strategies Rocco uses) that any team does that's different than any other team. And where I explain that the differences between teams is how they balance each strategy and combine them all into their own formula because each team has their own analytics that they use to personalize their use of each strategy. We're talking in game strategy. You seem to now be trying to move the goal posts to other areas. But there's only so many in game strategies to use. The way you're unique is the way you personalize your usage of those strategies.

So, again, the Twins DID do something drastically different (about as close as you can get to not just copying what others do) the last couple years when it came to their use of platoons. They were the very clear outliers in their use of the platoon last year. 

What "strategy?" That's where nuance comes in. It isn't just one strategy. You don't think their pitching development strategies (again, more than one strategy at play there) are good? I don't think their platoon strategies were good. And I've been one of the most vocal critics of it for years. To the point where people call me out on boards for being a broken record, or send me private messages asking me to just shut up about platooning. I don't like that strategy. I didn't like their strategy of drafting slow sluggers early in drafts. They've changed that strategy and gone more athletic lately. 

What's mind blowing to me is the statement that there's one singular strategy or process to judge. There aren't a lot of people on these boards saying the results are good or that the Twins have it all figured out. I'm certainly not saying that and never have. I've been very critical of their position players and their roster construction strategies when it comes to the position player side of things. But I do think they have some very good strategies when it comes to the pitching side. See, nuance is important. I've said many times, including in this very thread, that I'd fire Falvey if I were in charge. And that's the key move. You have to start at the top. But this simplified idea of looking "at this organization and saying this is good. the process is good. the strategy is good." is the problem. All you're doing is putting things into the "good or bad, black or white" buckets again and ignoring that there is no 1 individual strategy to judge the entire organization on.

The anti-Rocco cult is not welcoming of logic and nuance.  Such thoughts are foreign and scary to them.

[dxpavelka]

5 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

You completely missed the point. The point was that he didn't just do what the previous generations did like you were preaching. He actively rejected your stance of just doing what the managers before him did.

And if you think LaRussa is just known for Eckersley, you've only read 1 chapter of the metaphorical book and there's no point in furthering this discussion.

the POINT is that if your best guy is not available for the 9th somebody's gotta write articles like this one.  LaRaussa's best guy was ALWAYS there in the 9th.  End of discussion.

 

[chpettit19]

8 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

the POINT is that if your best guy is not available for the 9th somebody's gotta write articles like this one.  LaRaussa's best guy was ALWAYS there in the 9th.  End of discussion.

 

1986 was La Russa's first season with the A's. No Eckersley. He had 9 guys record saves. 2 in double figures with saves. Not exactly ALWAYS having one guy in the 9th, huh? Sort of sounds like a closer by committee situation. But that can't be. Nobody would be that stupid. Especially not an "old school" guy like La Russa.

'87 had Eckersley show up and record 16 saves. Same exact number of saves as Jay Howell. 7 total pitchers recorded saves that year for them. Dang, another closer by committee sounding season. But that's impossible because you put ALWAYS in all caps so it has to be true that La Russa would never even consider that idea even though you've already been proven wrong in just his first 2 seasons in Oakland.

'88 saw Eck truly take over the closer role and record 45 saves. 5 other players recorded saves, though. 4 of them recorded at least 3. 19 total saves to other players. More unbalanced, but certainly not an ALWAYS situation.

'89 Eck with 33, Honeycutt 12, 12 others between 3 more pitchers. Really not an ALWAYS situation.

'90 Eck 48, 16 to other 4 other pitchers. Still not an ALWAYS situation.

'91 you're actually right on this one as Eck recorded 43 saves and only 2 other pitchers had saves. 6 total. So you're at 1 out of 6 seasons so far, congrats. It's almost like you're completely and utterly wrong on your general premise, though. Good chat. 

[dxpavelka]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

1986 was La Russa's first season with the A's. No Eckersley. He had 9 guys record saves. 2 in double figures with saves. Not exactly ALWAYS having one guy in the 9th, huh? Sort of sounds like a closer by committee situation. But that can't be. Nobody would be that stupid. Especially not an "old school" guy like La Russa.

'87 had Eckersley show up and record 16 saves. Same exact number of saves as Jay Howell. 7 total pitchers recorded saves that year for them. Dang, another closer by committee sounding season. But that's impossible because you put ALWAYS in all caps so it has to be true that La Russa would never even consider that idea even though you've already been proven wrong in just his first 2 seasons in Oakland.

'88 saw Eck truly take over the closer role and record 45 saves. 5 other players recorded saves, though. 4 of them recorded at least 3. 19 total saves to other players. More unbalanced, but certainly not an ALWAYS situation.

'89 Eck with 33, Honeycutt 12, 12 others between 3 more pitchers. Really not an ALWAYS situation.

'90 Eck 48, 16 to other 4 other pitchers. Still not an ALWAYS situation.

'91 you're actually right on this one as Eck recorded 43 saves and only 2 other pitchers had saves. 6 total. So you're at 1 out of 6 seasons so far, congrats. It's almost like you're completely and utterly wrong on your general premise, though. Good chat. 

yawn

 

[chpettit19]

6 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

yawn

 

Yes, facts and actual information are often found to be boring compared to emotional reactions and just going with how something feels. Its the driving factor behind headlines and how many things are done online. Doesn't change the actual facts, though. Enjoy your day.

[dxpavelka]

11 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Yes, facts and actual information are often found to be boring compared to emotional reactions and just going with how something feels. Its the driving factor behind headlines and how many things are done online. Doesn't change the actual facts, though. Enjoy your day.

How many times did Eckersley come in other than the 9th?  Not very often.  Sure other guys got saves.  But not because Eck pitched earlier in the game but because Eck was not available that particular day.  There's your facts.

 

 

[chpettit19]

7 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

How many times did Eckersley come in other than the 9th?  Not very often.  Sure other guys got saves.  But not because Eck pitched earlier in the game but because Eck was not available that particular day.  There's your facts.

 

 

19 saves by 5 other players? Eck wasn't available a lot. Another guy with 12 saves and 3 other guys combining for 12 more the next season. 

In 1987 Eck appeared in the 4th inning 10 times, 5th inning twice,  6th inning 7 times,  7th inning 7 times,  8th inning 12 times. 

I'm sorry your assumption was wrong, but it was wrong. 

[Woof Bronzer]

21 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Yes, facts and actual information are often found to be boring compared to emotional reactions and just going with how something feels. Its the driving factor behind headlines and how many things are done online. Doesn't change the actual facts, though. Enjoy your day.

Aren't you the guy who claims Falvey has built this amazing pitching development pipeline while ignoring the fact that the one and only starter they've developed in 8 years is Ober?  Do those facts matter?  Or is that more about an emotional reaction against those who have the temerity to question the analytics-obsessed organizational philosophy you love that is quite clearly sinking this franchise?  

[chpettit19]

50 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Aren't you the guy who claims Falvey has built this amazing pitching development pipeline while ignoring the fact that the one and only starter they've developed in 8 years is Ober?  Do those facts matter?  Or is that more about an emotional reaction against those who have the temerity to question the analytics-obsessed organizational philosophy you love that is quite clearly sinking this franchise?  

I'm the guy who has been openly critical about it taking too long to develop the "pitching development pipeline." (In fact, just yesterday I made that very statement) It's not an "emotional reaction" to suggest the Twins have helped Joe Ryan reach another level after he arrived here nor is it an "emotional reaction" to suggest that Festa, Zebby, Lewis, Prielipp, Raya, Soto, Morris, Culpepper, Hill, et al represent a high-quality pitching prospect group that just about any other organization would love to have. I don't think I've ever used the phrase "amazing pitching development pipeline" in my life, though. 

I'm also the guy who's been openly critical about the macro-analytical approach to platooning this team had for years that I felt held them back significantly. I'm also the guy who's been openly critical about their failure to produce defensively capable position players. I'm also the guy who's been openly critical about their failure to produce offensively capable position players.

I'm also the guy who has repeatedly stated (including multiple times in this very thread in responses to you) that he'd fire Derek Falvey. But you don't want to acknowledge that because that'd get in the way of your emotional reaction to my facts. But other than all of that, sure, you really got me on this one! How dare I have the audacity to only question some of what they do and not say 100% of it is terrible and awful! I only want to fire them but am also crazy enough to still be objective and not just rage about everything. What an outrageous way for me to go through life.

[Woof Bronzer]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

How dare I have the audacity to only question some of what they do and not say 100% of it is terrible and awful! I only want to fire them but am also crazy enough to still be objective and not just rage about everything. What an outrageous way for me to go through life.

Yes, good thing you're keeping that rage in check...I guess my point is this is a total system failure and I don't understand why it's at all meaningful that the Twins have developed a decent starter in Ober and a few minor leaguers.  The Ryan/Gardy era Twins were good at fundamentals, did that stop them from getting canned? In fact by your "pitching pipeline" metric Terry Ryan was much more successful than Falvey, no? 

Being a successful GM doesn't mean picking and choosing one aspect of baseball and doing that well at the expense of everything else, it means holistically and sustainably building a successful team and farm system.  Don't ask me, ask Derek Falvey, who said when he was hired that his job was to build a sustainable contender. If even you are admitting that he has epically failed in this mission, than I really don't understand your point on the "pitching pipeline".  "Fire him, but thank him for his work on Ober."  Ok?  

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Yes, good thing you're keeping that rage in check...I guess my point is this is a total system failure and I don't understand why it's at all meaningful that the Twins have developed a decent starter in Ober and a few minor leaguers.  The Ryan/Gardy era Twins were good at fundamentals, did that stop them from getting canned? In fact by your "pitching pipeline" metric Terry Ryan was much more successful than Falvey, no? 

Being a successful GM doesn't mean picking and choosing one aspect of baseball and doing that well at the expense of everything else, it means holistically and sustainably building a successful team and farm system.  Don't ask me, ask Derek Falvey, who said when he was hired that his job was to build a sustainable contender. If even you are admitting that he has epically failed in this mission, than I really don't understand your point on the "pitching pipeline".  "Fire him, but thank him for his work on Ober."  Ok?  

If Festa, Zebby, etc. are 2s and 3s in a rotation it's absolutely meaningful. If they're at the point where they can start consistently turning out multiple legitimate mid- to upper-rotation arms that is not something to just brush off. If they're all just 4s and 5s like TR and company were kicking out then it's not so meaningful. It's up to everyone individually to decide what they think the future holds for those arms. I've already said it took too long to get the system to where it is now, but this part of the discussion is forward looking. If they have it figured out it's meaningful to risk screwing up a development system that could produce regular legit MLB arms.

And, yes, it did stop them from getting canned for a very long time. TR was in charge for 18 years (over 2 stints). Gardy managed for 13 seasons. Neither had any real playoff success. They won 6 playoff games in those years. Let's not act like the Pohlad boys club loyalty is some new thing that Falvey and Rocco are getting treated to after Gardy and TR were given quick hooks. That's not how things played out at all. TR and Gardy were good at their jobs for a long time and I'm not here to say otherwise, but they were also given very long leashes while very clearly showing no real chance of being capable of bringing a title to Minnesota.

Was Ryan more successful at pitching development? What pitching pipeline did Terry Ryan develop? He was in charge from 1994 to 2007 and then 2011 to 2016. That's 18 years by my count. Johan was a Rule 5 pick so we can give him partial credit there like Joe Ryan (but obviously Johan was WAY better) as they finished his development. Liriano (trade) and Berrios were wins for sure. Radke was drafted and developed under McPhail, not TR. Eric Milton 4.76 ERA with the Twins, Joe Mays 4.85, Kyle Lohse 4.88, Scott Baker 4.15, Kevin Slowey 4.66, Perkins had to move to the pen, Nick Blackburn 4.85, Brian Duensing 4.13, Liam Hendriks 6.06, Scott Diamond 4.43, Cole De Vries 5.08, Kyle Gibson 4.52, Adalberto Mejia 4.63, Fernando Romero 5.17. TR was in charge for 18 years and had 3 clear wins. Falvey has been in charge for 8 and has 2. I'm not seeing the "much more successful" TR pipeline. Just more names because he was here for longer.

Of course being a GM (or POBO) is about more than being successful at one side of the game. You're responding to a comment where I literally say "I'm also the guy who's been openly critical about their failure to produce defensively capable position players. I'm also the guy who's been openly critical about their failure to produce offensively capable position players." And I'll now say for the 4th time in this thread that I'd fire Falvey because of it. But if you think he's "picking and choosing one aspect" you're not paying attention. Go look at his drafts. He's not taking pitchers in the first round. He just isn't good at getting the right people and systems in place to produce successful offenses and defenses in the majors. And (for the 5th time now) I'd fire him for it. But, yes, him being able to develop pitching is still a factor in the decision. Because there's a chance things get worse.

I'd fire him because I want a championship. I don't think Falvey has what it takes to bring the Twins there. So, I'd fire him. But I do it with my eyes open to the fact that there's a chance that things can be worse. And I would hire somebody else who also believes in analytics because we're in the 21st century and data is king. I think "total system failure" is a significant exaggeration for the situation. I don't think this team is going to lose 100 games. I don't think this team is going lose 90 games. I think they have a top 10 pitching staff and that will keep them competitive and around .500 again. But I don't want competitive and around .500 and that's why I'd remove Falvey. I wouldn't say he's "epically failed" at his mission. I just don't think he can win a championship and that's what I want.

[dxpavelka]

16 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

19 saves by 5 other players? Eck wasn't available a lot. Another guy with 12 saves and 3 other guys combining for 12 more the next season. 

In 1987 Eck appeared in the 4th inning 10 times, 5th inning twice,  6th inning 7 times,  7th inning 7 times,  8th inning 12 times. 

I'm sorry your assumption was wrong, but it was wrong. 

Funny.  I named SIX managers who didn't go by your book.  But you obsess on ONE.  Also funny:  You chose 1987 to make your point.  His first year as a relief pitcher.  His FIRST year as a reliever.  A role in which he had yet to establish himself as one of the best ever.  A season in which he had less than half as many saves as he AVERAGED  for Oakland.  How many other seasons did he pitch 10 times in the 4th inning?  Or 7 times in the 6th inning?  Or 7 times in the 7th inning?  I'll wait.

 

[chpettit19]

8 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Funny.  I named SIX managers who didn't go by your book.  But you obsess on ONE.  Also funny:  You chose 1987 to make your point.  His first year as a relief pitcher.  His FIRST year as a reliever.  A role in which he had yet to establish himself as one of the best ever.  A season in which he had less than half as many saves as he AVERAGED  for Oakland.  How many other seasons did he pitch 10 times in the 4th inning?  Or 7 times in the 6th inning?  Or 7 times in the 7th inning?  I'll wait.

 

Yes, I did focus on one because you are the one advocating for the manager to go by the book, not me, and La Russa was known for being the opposite of what you're advocating for and not going by the book. He changed the game and how it was managed and that's been my point.

I focused on the one because when I provided 6 seasons of stats your response was "yawn." You want more? In 1988 he pitched in the 8th inning 22 times. '89 was 17 times. '90 was 21. '91 was 22. It's why he was unavailable so often and La Russa had to use 4-6 guys to get about 20 saves a year for all those seasons. I'm sorry I'm not going to spend more time doing his entire career, but I've given you the number of times he appeared in games before the 9th in his first 5 seasons in Oakland and given you La Russa's closers numbers for his first 6 seasons in Oakland.

You're still going to deny that he used his bullpen differently than every other manager and changed the game even though it's what he's known for and why they came up with the term "La Russaization" so I'm going to stop wasting my time on someone who doesn't care about the actual facts of how things happened. I don't have a book I want Rocco, or any manager, to go by. That's you. In fact, my first post in this thread said I'd prefer he uses Sands in the 7th, Jax in the 8th, and Duran in the 9th but that I don't think it's outrageous to go by matchups instead of innings. My "book" is to be adaptable to the roster you have available to you. You and most of the "old school" advocates are the ones with the hard and fast "book" of rules on how things should be done. Not me.

[dxpavelka]

14 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Yes, I did focus on one because you are the one advocating for the manager to go by the book, not me, and La Russa was known for being the opposite of what you're advocating for and not going by the book. He changed the game and how it was managed and that's been my point.

I focused on the one because when I provided 6 seasons of stats your response was "yawn." You want more? In 1988 he pitched in the 8th inning 22 times. '89 was 17 times. '90 was 21. '91 was 22. It's why he was unavailable so often and La Russa had to use 4-6 guys to get about 20 saves a year for all those seasons. I'm sorry I'm not going to spend more time doing his entire career, but I've given you the number of times he appeared in games before the 9th in his first 5 seasons in Oakland and given you La Russa's closers numbers for his first 6 seasons in Oakland.

You're still going to deny that he used his bullpen differently than every other manager and changed the game even though it's what he's known for and why they came up with the term "La Russaization" so I'm going to stop wasting my time on someone who doesn't care about the actual facts of how things happened. I don't have a book I want Rocco, or any manager, to go by. That's you. In fact, my first post in this thread said I'd prefer he uses Sands in the 7th, Jax in the 8th, and Duran in the 9th but that I don't think it's outrageous to go by matchups instead of innings. My "book" is to be adaptable to the roster you have available to you. You and most of the "old school" advocates are the ones with the hard and fast "book" of rules on how things should be done. Not me.

And most of those times he pitched in the 8th he also pitched in the 9th.  Thus he was AVAILABLE in those 9th innings.  AND like I said you quoted me gospel verses of EVERY inning he pitched in in 1987, his first year converting from starter to reliever. Again, How many 4th innings did he pitch in after 1987?  Still waiting.  And as far as him pitching more than one inning, it wasn't THAT uncommon back then, especially for a guy with 350 starts under his belt.

[chpettit19]

8 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

And most of those times he pitched in the 8th he also pitched in the 9th.  Thus he was AVAILABLE in those 9th innings.  AND like I said you quoted me gospel verses of EVERY inning he pitched in in 1987, his first year converting from starter to reliever. Again, How many 4th innings did he pitch in after 1987?  Still waiting.  And as far as him pitching more than one inning, it wasn't THAT uncommon back then, especially for a guy with 350 starts under his belt.

How many 4th innings has Duran ever pitched in? What's your point? I've given you 5 and 6 years worth of data that you can't refute so you want to focus on 4th innings? You're right, he didn't pitch in the 4th anymore. Congrats. La Russa still used half a dozen guys to close games despite your claims that he'd never rely on guys other than his closer like Rocco does.

[dxpavelka]

1 minute ago, chpettit19 said:

How many 4th innings has Duran ever pitched in? What's your point? I've given you 5 and 6 years worth of data that you can't refute so you want to focus on 4th innings? You're right, he didn't pitch in the 4th anymore. Congrats. La Russa still used half a dozen guys to close games despite your claims that he'd never rely on guys other than his closer like Rocco does.

No, YOU brought 4th and 5th and 6th and 7th innings into play.  And, no, you have not given me 5 and 6 years of data bout those innings.  I can only assume because doing so in no way helps your narrative.  And, I never said Larussa would NEVER use other guys to close games.  In fact I've even explained why he sometimes had to.  Still waiting for the data that doesn't support your conclusions.

 

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

No, YOU brought 4th and 5th and 6th and 7th innings into play.  And, no, you have not given me 5 and 6 years of data bout those innings.  I can only assume because doing so in no way helps your narrative.  And, I never said Larussa would NEVER use other guys to close games.  In fact I've even explained why he sometimes had to.  Still waiting for the data that doesn't support your conclusions.

 

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I certainly wasn't running from the 4th through 7th innings. I gave the innings he pitched before the ninth which made it so he was unavailable to close games. Whether it was that very game or the next 2 or 3. There is no data from that time that doesn't support my conclusion. That's the point. La Russa used Eck in a way that forced him to have to rely on other guys to close games. Just like Rocco uses Duran in ways that forces him to have to rely on others to close games. 

I notice you haven't given any data for any of the managers you listed. I'd bet you've never actually looked any data up. I'd bet you have no idea whatsoever on what their bullpen useage actually was. You just have your memories and what you think they are. And that's good enough to convince you you know how things were done. Just like now. When I've provided 6 years worth of data proving that La Russa used 5 other guys a season to close at least a third of the games. You don't care because it doesn't match how you feel things were.

[dxpavelka]

15 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I certainly wasn't running from the 4th through 7th innings. I gave the innings he pitched before the ninth which made it so he was unavailable to close games. Whether it was that very game or the next 2 or 3. There is no data from that time that doesn't support my conclusion. That's the point. La Russa used Eck in a way that forced him to have to rely on other guys to close games. Just like Rocco uses Duran in ways that forces him to have to rely on others to close games. 

I notice you haven't given any data for any of the managers you listed. I'd bet you've never actually looked any data up. I'd bet you have no idea whatsoever on what their bullpen useage actually was. You just have your memories and what you think they are. And that's good enough to convince you you know how things were done. Just like now. When I've provided 6 years worth of data proving that La Russa used 5 other guys a season to close at least a third of the games. You don't care because it doesn't match how you feel things were.

you've proven nothing