Why Do the Twins Keep Playing with a Short Roster?

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Possumlad said:

I'm confused what your point is here. Should teams be giving more playing time to worse players?

No, they should have guys they're willing to play in a role. Platoon bat, defensive sub/stolen base threat. Something. Not roster guys they don't ever want to put in games. Having a guy on your roster you're afraid of having to put on the field is bad roster management. The goal for major league teams is to have 26 guys they're willing to play and use in a combination of roles that allows them to counter the other team's moves. Rostering Fedko, McCusker, Keirsey types, or 3rd catchers, limits their options. It is not maximizing your roster.

No team has 9 guys (or 10 with 2 catchers) that they play every day in every situation. Not even the Dodgers. So, you need to have guys up and down the roster who can fill in for each other's gaps in skill. Having a roster spot used on a guy you don't trust to truly fill any gap in another player's skill is a complete and utter waste of a roster spot and bad roster management.

[DocBauer]

I've been frustrated with this entire 13th man issue for a few years now.

I don't want to play the "back in my day" card, but I recall the roster constructions of decades past, the 70's all the way until the early '00's. 

A lot of AL teams, not all, had a primary DH as part of a 14, or even 15 man player roster "back in the day". NL teams sometimes had a "professional" PH. And sometimes, a team had an extra spot for a platoon player. For rough examples, the Mets employed Rusty Staub as their primary PH, and Earl Weaver was one of the first managers I can recall who liked to platoon where he could.

NOTE: I'm ignoring the couple of seasons where owners mandated a 24 man roster.

Perhaps I simply can't recall properly, but during the TK and Gardy years, I just can't recall a 13th or 14th player that didn't provide a PURPOSE for being on the roster. (3rd catcher-Ugh)! And if I'm wrong, someone please correct my memory.

The last man on the bench might not have always played a ton, but he served a purpose, and was still fit in to the lineup here and there. As Kelly once stated, and I'm only paraphrasing slightly: "How can I ask a player to perform when he's been rotting on the bench"?

The Twins lineup has been doing well. Even the defense has improved with the shuffling Shelton has done. And I understand that right now, we have a 3 catcher conundrum for obvious reasons. I'm NOT asking for some major change.

But just like the 8th man in the bullpen might occasionally be used in a crunch time moment...and you hope for the best...shouldn't the 13th position player offer up SOMETHING for the team?

How about a veteran RH bat who crushes LHP but doesn't suck against RHP? Maybe the same for a veteran utility type player who can give days off to starters once in a while? I can even get behind a super fast PR who can play great OF defense who isn't completely inept with a bat in his hand. 

But someone who sits on the bench, who seldom plays, who only PR once in a while and is a late inning defensive replacement just doesn't sound like a viable use of the 13th spot.

Is it a lack of talent for that spot? Or a lack of the manager's imagination to actually PLAY said player? Both?

Just for a moment, let's forget the current state of a 3rd catcher. K-Pepper is ready in a couple of weeks and takes over SS. Gray goes down, Kreidler is the Super Utility guy. Buxton is back and you send Roden down? Why did you trade for him in the first place then? Or do you keep him for the same role that Keirsey and Outman and Fedko filled? What's the point in that? Again, why did you trade for him in the first place then?

How about platooning, giving guys days off, and using your ENTIRE roster so that everyone can contribute? Imagine sitting on the bench for 10 days with 1 game started and 3 PA and then being asked to PH in a game?

Your bench is 4 players, and 1 of them is a backup catcher, normally. You only want to play 2 of the remaining 3? That's either a lack of talent, or poor imagination of your manager. Every spot on your roster should have SOME importance. 

 

[KirbyDome89]

On 7/14/2026 at 9:41 AM, nicksaviking said:

Sorry, but I completely disagree. I don't recall anyone complaining about the lack of usage Jarvis Brown got. 

With an ideal roster, the Twins would have four bench guys who play infrequently. This isn't Little League, you WANT a team with nine players that don't need to be removed for pitching matchups, defensive liabilities or late inning baserunning. Now, no (mid-market) team will ever get there, but intentionally building a platoon lineup means you are intentionally fielding a roster of flawed players.

 

That's the Twins right? What's the argument for the current usage of the 13th spot? 

[KirbyDome89]

15 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

No, they should have guys they're willing to play in a role. Platoon bat, defensive sub/stolen base threat. Something. Not roster guys they don't ever want to put in games. Having a guy on your roster you're afraid of having to put on the field is bad roster management. The goal for major league teams is to have 26 guys they're willing to play and use in a combination of roles that allows them to counter the other team's moves. Rostering Fedko, McCusker, Keirsey types, or 3rd catchers, limits their options. It is not maximizing your roster.

No team has 9 guys (or 10 with 2 catchers) that they play every day in every situation. Not even the Dodgers. So, you need to have guys up and down the roster who can fill in for each other's gaps in skill. Having a roster spot used on a guy you don't trust to truly fill any gap in another player's skill is a complete and utter waste of a roster spot and bad roster management.

It's literally that simple. I don't understand why people are twisting themselves into pretzels to rationalize this team intentionally handicapping themselves. 

[stringer bell]

I don't think it is indefensible, if you have a versitile roster, to have a 13th position player who is really a specialist, in the vein of Keirsey Jr. last year. If there is coverage for platoons and occasional rest for the better hitters, having a guy who can field a key position and steal a base can work. 

I don't think the Twins are the perfect example, because the position players aren't that well-rounded. This is particularly true in postseason, but having a guy who can steal a base when the other team is trying to stop it and be a plus defender in late innings is worth something, even if the manager doesn't want to see him hit.

McCusker particularly and Fedko mostly got promotions because they did hit in the minors and were never given a real chance to show they could do the same in "the show".

In recent memory, the Atlanta Braves had a preferred lineup that had eight starters plus a catcher job share that continued until somebody got injured (Albies?). It is rare that a team has that many regulars who are in the lineup 90% of the time. Platooning goes all the way back to Casey Stengel, if not longer. 

[purplesoldier4u]

On 7/14/2026 at 8:15 AM, chpettit19 said:

That's 27 more PAs in 19 fewer games than James Outman had with the Twins this year. I don't think that's the same at all. He's a short-side platoon guy. Outman would've been the big side of a platoon but wasn't even that. 

The Twins use of the 13th spot is absolutely not the norm in modern baseball. Teams don't tend to roster guys they don't trust to hit against anyone ever or be defensive replacements. They have some platoon spots so there'll be guys who don't play as many games (like Arias) because they're righties who only hit against lefties, but it is not typical to carry a guy you don't ever trust to step into the batter's box against any pitcher ever.

Outman had some potential, it's just no longer there. Detroit has given him more opportunity and the results are (roughly) the same.