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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 🤷🏼‍♂️

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.

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.

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. 

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.