Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins News & Analysis

    Why Rocco Baldelli Went to Cole Irvin on Sunday, and Whether He Was Right


    Matthew Taylor

    Minnesota Twins fans have been buzzing since Rocco Baldelli made the decision to pull rookie Zebby Matthews from Sunday’s game in the 5th inning, despite him cruising through 87 pitches. The move was met with plenty of armchair managing and heated debate—was it the right call, or should the skipper have stuck with his starter?

    Image courtesy of © Eric Canha-Imagn Images

    Twins Video

    Before diving into whether it was the correct decision, let's lay out the logic behind Rocco Baldelli’s move.

    First, Zebby Matthews had just given up a double to Ceddanne Rafaela, the No. 9 hitter in the Boston lineup. Next up? Jarren Duran, the Sox's leadoff hitter, for the third time in the game. Here’s where the context is key: while pitch counts used to be the dominant factor in determining when managers lifted their starters, times through the order has become the more telling framework in recent years. Numbers consistently show that pitchers facing hitters for the third time in a game are significantly less effective. This season, Matthews has barely been allowed to see a batter a third time, and when he has, the results haven’t been pretty: 16 plate appearances and a .375 batting average against him.

    Then there’s the matchup itself. Jarren Duran is a lefty, and Matthews has struggled all year against left-handed batters, allowing them an OPS of 1.011. Meanwhile, Duran thrives against right-handed pitching, boasting a .913 OPS in those situations. Baldelli knew this wasn’t a favorable setup for the rookie, especially with Duran representing a pivotal out.

    On top of all this, Matthews is a rookie, approaching a career high in innings pitched, and hasn’t exactly been the picture of consistency. The context is clear: leaving Matthews in would have risked a catastrophic inning.

    So, the skipper turned to his bullpen and decided to bring in lefty Cole Irvin. The goal was to neutralize Duran with two outs. It was its own kind of risky, since the three-batter minimum rule would force Irvin to face right-handed hitters in a less-than-ideal scenario. With two outs, Irvin just needed to retire Duran. If he did, the Twins could reset the bullpen in the next inning. The logic there is sound. Had there been only one out, the decision might’ve been harder to justify.

    Now, let’s address the elephant in the room: Cole Irvin.

    Irvin was claimed off the scrapheap, after no team with a higher waiver priority than the Twins' wanted him. That's despite the fact that he's controllable beyond this year. It's understandable, because his 2024 season has been nothing short of miserable. However, his splits against left-handed hitters are solid—he’s held them to a .529 OPS this year, and Baldelli has shown a preference for deploying Irvin in these mid-inning matchups. The only other lefty available was Caleb Thielbar, who hasn’t inspired much more confidence than Irvin this season. So, Minnesota’s options were limited.

    Could Baldelli have gone to one of his high-leverage arms, like Griffin Jax, Jhoan Durán, or Cole Sands to escape the jam? Sure--especially coming off an off day with the rainout on Saturday and a planned day off on Monday. Pushing extra hard on the top of your bullpen was certainly in the cards. But still, it was only the 5th inning, and burning one of your top bullpen arms that early in a game with so much baseball left to play is rarely ideal.

    The issue wasn’t in the decision to bring in Irvin—it was what happened next. Irvin walked Duran. That was the one thing he couldn’t afford to do. Compelled to stay in and face a right-handed batter, Irvin’s numbers take a nosedive. Against righties, Irvin has allowed a .942 OPS this season. The result was heartbreakingly predictable: Romy González hit a three-run bomb, and the inning spiraled out of control.

    Here’s an interesting observation to fold in from a broader perspective: The Twins' starting rotation, almost exclusively right-handed the past few seasons, means the team enjoys the platoon advantage more often than any other club when their starter is in the game. This year, they’ve had the platoon advantage in 52.2% of their starter matchups, first in MLB. However, that setup also invites opposing teams to stack their lineup with left-handed bats. The downside? The Twins lack reliable left-handed relievers. In fact, while most teams gain more favorable platoon matchups when they turn to their bullpen, the Twins don’t—once again landing at that 52.2% mark. The Irvin walk exposed the flaw in this bullpen construction: when you can’t rely on your lefties to at least get lefties, the advantage evaporates.

    In the end, Baldelli’s logic was solid—he protected the rookie from facing a dangerous lefty for the third time, gave himself a chance to avoid the three-batter minimum trap, and put Irvin in a position to succeed. But baseball is a game of execution, and Irvin’s inability to throw strikes cost the Twins dearly. The problem wasn’t the decision-making—it was the options available. When your two left-handed bullpen arms are inconsistent at best, and one walks the one batter he can't, it’s tough to find a winning outcome.

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos

    Twins Top Prospects

    Riley Quick

    Fort Myers Mighty Mussels - A, RHP
    Start #3 for the 21-year-old went well again. He tossed three scoreless innings with no walks. He gave up one hit and had three strikeouts. In 8 IP through 3 starts, he's given up 0 runs, 1 hit, 3 walks, and 13 strikeouts.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    The third-time-through logic has this one missing piece: Zebby's OPS-against is even worse the first time through (.862) and second time (.904) than the third (.813).  If you were not going to let him continue a third time through, due to the numbers, then those numbers say you shouldn't have started him in the first place.  Given this paradox, I'd be inclined to give less credence to the small sample of data to work with.

    Here's the other way I look at it.  If you leave Zebby in and he fails to get Duran, you can take him out and put in a righty to replace him that you trust more.  If you put in either lefty and he fails to get Duran, you are stuck with no new option for two more batters.

    Ultimately, though, if Sands would have been the man (to clean up immediately after Zebby vs Duran), the outcome when he actually did come in a few batters later doesn't suggest anything better.  A lose-lose proposition.  We do not have a shut-down bullpen.

    I leave Zebby in, last batter regardless of the outcome, feeling that all the options are low probability for success.  Maybe a success against a tough batter gives the youngster an extra shot of confidence going forward., plus it puts him in line for the W since it'll be 5 complete innings.  If he fails, worst case it's 2-2.  We saw the worst case with the lefty he brought in: 3-2 (okay okay, I guess 4-2 was a possibility too).

     

    "burning one of your top bullpen arms that early in a game with so much baseball left to play is rarely ideal."

    In July yes... in a must win game at the end of September with a completely rested bullpen and an off day pending... ABSOLUTELY NOT.  (and this isn't even taking into account to possibility of leaving Zebby in)  

    Using a better relief pitcher earlier in a game during a perceived high leverage situation even has a name (Fireman).

    Sorry, no amount of mental gymnastics is going the make this anything other than managerial malpractice. 

    It is such flagrant managerial malpractice that the Twins fans probably have grounds for a class action lawsuit... I kid (I think)....

    And don't even get me started on the bizarre Margot pinch hitting obsession (the definition of insanity is... well you know...) much less how many ABs he has accumulated this year

    44 minutes ago, D.C Twins said:

    "burning one of your top bullpen arms that early in a game with so much baseball left to play is rarely ideal."

    In July yes... in a must win game at the end of September with a completely rested bullpen and an off day pending... ABSOLUTELY NOT.  (and this isn't even taking into account to possibility of leaving Zebby in)  

    Using a better relief pitcher earlier in a game during a perceived high leverage situation even has a name (Fireman).

    Sorry, no amount of mental gymnastics is going the make this anything other than managerial malpractice. 

    It is such flagrant managerial malpractice that the Twins fans probably have grounds for a class action lawsuit... I kid (I think)....

    And don't even get me started on the bizarre Margot pinch hitting obsession (the definition of insanity is... well you know...) much less how many ABs he has accumulated this year

    The Mets don't have a great bullpen. But they have a manager that is utilizing them well.

    Last night, the Mets played as if they were in a must win game and brought in what fans would consider probably their third best reliever in to start the 5th and managed to get two innings. 

    It's fascinating watching a manager with good instincts versus one with none. 

    The problem wasn’t the decision-making—it was the options available” 

    The options available are perhaps the largest part of the decision making, especially now. In fact, in this case, it was the decision. 

    This was the wrong decision and as long they solely manage by analytics they will continue to make wrong decisions.  There was no reason not to let Zebby go one more batter, you can't build a pitching staff large enough to avoid pitching thru a lineup three times every time thru the rotation. 

    There are three problems Rocco has that make him a mediocre manager.

    One, brain lock. Sometimes, when the game speeds up on him, he locks up and can't make the obvious call. Examples of this are when he fails to put in a pinch runner or replace a struggling reliever.

    Two, galaxy brain. More or less the opposite of brain lock, this happens when he has a long time to think about something - like when he's going to take his starter out of the game - and he focuses too much on one aspect of the game and talks himself into a not-great decision.

    Third, uninspiring leader. This is his failure to get his players to play smart, hard-nosed baseball.

    Anyway, this was a case of galaxy brain. The question he asked himself was  "Who is the best pitcher to get Duran out?" rather than "Who is the best pitcher to finish the inning?" - with the understanding that finishing the inning might take facing multiple batters besides Duran. If you ask the second question, the obvious answer is Zebby Matthews (assuming the high-leverage relievers aren't on the table, which I think is fair), because Irvin is a disaster against the upcoming righties. But Rocco disregarded that. He focused only on Duran and ignored the question of what happens if Irvin *doesn't* get Duran.

    A simplified and also better question to ask would be "You can put your fate in Cole Irvin's hands or Zebby Matthews'. Who do you choose?" Given the evidence of your eyes yesterday, Matthews was the better choice.

    Addendum: This is exactly what we got Irvin for! If you can't use him here, where can you use him? Exactly. That's why he was available on the waiver wire. LOOGies are a dying breed because of exactly this problem.

    1 hour ago, ashbury said:

    The third-time-through logic has this one missing piece: Zebby's OPS-against is even worse the first time through (.862) and second time (.904) than the third (.813).  If you were not going to let him continue a third time through, due to the numbers, then those numbers say you shouldn't have started him in the first place.  Given this paradox, I'd be inclined to give less credence to the small sample of data to work with.

    Here's the other way I look at it.  If you leave Zebby in and he fails to get Duran, you can take him out and put in a righty to replace him that you trust more.  If you put in either lefty and he fails to get Duran, you are stuck with no new option for two more batters.

    Ultimately, though, if Sands would have been the man (to clean up immediately after Zebby vs Duran), the outcome when he actually did come in a few batters later doesn't suggest anything better.  A lose-lose proposition.  We do not have a shut-down bullpen.

    I leave Zebby in, last batter regardless of the outcome, feeling that all the options are low probability for success.  Maybe a success against a tough batter gives the youngster an extra shot of confidence going forward., plus it puts him in line for the W since it'll be 5 complete innings.  If he fails, worst case it's 2-2.  We saw the worst case with the lefty he brought in: 3-2 (okay okay, I guess 4-2 was a possibility too).

     

    So Duran is an All-star.

    He bats Left handed.

    Seeing what the outcome is and stating what should have/could have been done is silly, IMO.

    If Irvin gets the guy out, which is his job, (.529 OPS v. lefties) there’s no conversation nor second guessing.

    Matthew - great re-cap - great logical, fact based reasoning. Do we ALL wish something different would have transpired - absolutely. Trying to make Irvin’s walk of Duran and his advantage disappearing somehow Baldelli’s fault does not make any sense to me.

    It’s like saying Twins shouldn’t have started Lopez in the first game because he couldn’t get anybody out - what the hell are you thinking Rocco?!?!

    8 minutes ago, singlesoverwalks said:

    There are three problems Rocco has that make him a mediocre manager.

    One, brain lock. Sometimes, when the game speeds up on him, he locks up and can't make the obvious call. Examples of this are when he fails to put in a pinch runner or replace a struggling reliever.

    Two, galaxy brain. More or less the opposite of brain lock, this happens when he has a long time to think about something - like when he's going to take his starter out of the game - and he focuses too much on one aspect of the game and talks himself into a not-great decision.

    Third, uninspiring leader. This is his failure to get his players to play smart, hard-nosed baseball.

    Anyway, this was a case of galaxy brain. The question he asked himself was  "Who is the best pitcher to get Duran out?" rather than "Who is the best pitcher to finish the inning?" - with the understanding that finishing the inning might take facing multiple batters besides Duran. If you ask the second question, the obvious answer is Zebby Matthews (assuming the high-leverage relievers aren't on the table, which I think is fair), because Irvin is a disaster against the upcoming righties. But Rocco disregarded that. He focused only on Duran and ignored the question of what happens if Irvin *doesn't* get Duran.

    A simplified and also better question to ask would be "You can put your fate in Cole Irvin's hands or Zebby Matthews'. Who do you choose?" Given the evidence of your eyes yesterday, Matthews was the better choice.

    Addendum: This is exactly what we got Irvin for! If you can't use him here, where can you use him? Exactly. That's why he was available on the waiver wire. LOOGies are a dying breed because of exactly this problem.

    Per Matthew’s article…….Zebby is 87 pitches in…….he’s got 2 outs and he JUST gave up a double to the #9 hitter…..Duran (All-star) left handed hitter coming to the plate.

    Experienced Lefty - fresh - with a .529 OPS against v. left handed hitters. I take him ever time if I don’t already know the outcome of the inning.

    Yes, we’re all capable of understanding that good decisions don’t always lead to good results. 

    And bad decisions don’t always lead to bad results.

    This was a bad decision. You leave Matthews in…or you bring Sands in. If Sands gives up a 600 foot blast to the lefty, the game is tied, it’s the 5th inning, and you have a guy who has a good chance of getting the subsequent right handed batters out.

    Duran is NOT going to win the game for Boston by hitting a game-tying home run in the 5th inning. A desperate and risky move is not warranted. And the move is VERY risky because of what Irvin is (or, more accurately, what he isn’t)…and because of the 3 batter rule.

    If Sands sucks in that situation, you probably have a million people saying Rocco should have left Matthews in. But, I guarantee you not one sane person would be saying he should have put Irvin in (or Thielbar, either for that matter).

    I have seen 10 other teams play in person this year including 4 division leaders. This lefty/righty analytic concept simply is not deployed like it has been to the high degree by the Twins. It is especially true when a team does not have solid relief pitching like the Twins with their lefties. Momentum plays a part in the equation. An example is when Ober was having a great game recently (did not have a high number of pitches) and he was pulled due to the batter's hitting side. One needs to consider that a relief pitcher has to face 3 batters and the next two could be from the weaker side of the plate (analytically).

    In the end, the lack of going after new relief pitchers at the deadline last month was a damaging decision. Although, the hitting has been atrocious and there have been games lost due the low number of hits by the Twins. The lack of victories is not totally due to the pitching issues.

    I've realized this season, Twins fans, largely, are just too nice. This writeup is a great example of that. 

    You're in what is essentially a must win game and it's making excuses for bringing in what is probably the twins 8th best reliever. You say it's reasonable to not want to use your high leverage relievers but offer no explanation as to why. If he wanted to go to the bullpen I can be talked into it, although he could have very easily walked Duran and instantly already been a better move than using Irvin. But there's no reason you can't go to Thielbar. Or Sands. Or Jax. Or, yes, even Duran. 

    I've heard criticism here that Rocco is wrong for not having clear roles but I don't agree with that at all. If you can't use your best reliever at any point, you've failed as a manager. 

    With a day off on Monday, I think going to the bullpen is right, but everyone here calling for Sands displays better instincts than a major league manager. 

    40 minutes ago, karcherd said:

    you can't build a pitching staff large enough to avoid pitching thru a lineup three times every time thru the rotation. 

    This is a very good point. I'd say that actually a few high-budget or super-smart teams (like Cleveland) can do this often. Relentlessly playing the matchups and not letting starters pitch to hitters a third time turns out really well if you have a bunch of great relievers. But if you have a mediocre bullpen, your starter is often just a better pitcher than most of your relievers.

    25 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

    I've realized this season, Twins fans, largely, are just too nice. This writeup is a great example of that. 

    Yep. And also, the manager gets to manage our team because he sees and understands more than the players' L/R splits that any of us can get on Fangraphs. The best managers know that stuff but are able to make better decisions because they (1) have more information than us thanks to seeing the game with a trained eye and (2) have an intuitive tactical sense that comes from decades of experience in baseball. Those managers will occasionally make moves that seem counterintuitive to us because they know something we don't, and those moves will often work out. They'll get more out of their team than we thought was possible. We should be trying to find a manager like that.

    Interesting article but I don't buy it.  Rocco is not a major league manager.  He may be a good spreadsheet person and a yes man for Falvey but he appears to have no in game management savvy.  Pulling Matthew's MAY be questionable but putting in Irvin in that situation was just one of many strange moves all summer.  The person writing this article did a great job of research and bringing up his views.  Ɓut all it appeared to be was a public relations promotion regarding Roccos managing skills.

    “It’s hard to argue the Twins’ frequent pinch hitting has paid off. Baldelli has used the AL’s second-most pinch hitters this year (176), and they’ve hit just .196 with a .566 OPS. Baldelli has also used the AL’s second-most pinch hitters since 2021 (595), and they’ve batted just .205 with a .609 OPS that ranks fifth-worst in the league in that span. It hasn’t been a winning strategy.”

    Gleeman on the Twins pinch hitting (The Athletic)

    1 hour ago, JD-TWINS said:

    So Duran is an All-star.

    He bats Left handed.

    Seeing what the outcome is and stating what should have/could have been done is silly, IMO.

    If Irvin gets the guy out, which is his job, (.529 OPS v. lefties) there’s no conversation nor second guessing.

    Matthew - great re-cap - great logical, fact based reasoning. Do we ALL wish something different would have transpired - absolutely. Trying to make Irvin’s walk of Duran and his advantage disappearing somehow Baldelli’s fault does not make any sense to me.

    It’s like saying Twins shouldn’t have started Lopez in the first game because he couldn’t get anybody out - what the hell are you thinking Rocco?!?!

    Even if you believe this. (which to each their own I guess)... why did he come out to start the next inning again?

    1 hour ago, singlesoverwalks said:

    A simplified and also better question to ask would be "You can put your fate in Cole Irvin's hands or Zebby Matthews'. Who do you choose?" Given the evidence of your eyes yesterday, Matthews was the better choice.

    This is perfect hindsight. Zebby Matthews has almost no track record of success in the majors. Irvin has managed to stay in the majors for six seasons.

    Every option Rocco had was a bad option

    - Leave in the struggling rookie

    - Go with one of the players cut by another team (Irvin, Tonkin)

    - Go with your own struggling reliever (Thielbar, Varland)

    - Go with someone who has already pitched earlier that day (Headrick, Blewett)

    - Go to your late inning pitcher in the 4th inning (Sands, Jax, Duran) which will force you to use one of your other crappy options in the late innings if the move is successful

    1 hour ago, jkcarew said:

    Yes, we’re all capable of understanding that good decisions don’t always lead to good results. 

    And bad decisions don’t always lead to bad results.

    This was a bad decision. You leave Matthews in…or you bring Sands in. If Sands gives up a 600 foot blast to the lefty, the game is tied, it’s the 5th inning, and you have a guy who has a good chance of getting the subsequent right handed batters out.

    Duran is NOT going to win the game for Boston by hitting a game-tying home run in the 5th inning. A desperate and risky move is not warranted. And the move is VERY risky because of what Irvin is (or, more accurately, what he isn’t)…and because of the 3 batter rule.

    If Sands sucks in that situation, you probably have a million people saying Rocco should have left Matthews in. But, I guarantee you not one sane person would be saying he should have put Irvin in (or Thielbar, either for that matter).

    Runs count the same in the 5th and 9th inning... if you blow up the 5th and 6th inning, there is no competitive 8th and 9th inning.... and you CRUSH the moral of your line up and defense.

    Do you think it feels different playing ahead by a run versus down by 6?

    Don't ignore the actual problem in front of you because of a concern about a hypothetical problem in the future 

    And that's why using firemen in key high leverage situations will continue to be a strategy used by successful managers for important games. 

    We literally used a reliver cast off a playoff team that new better in one of the most important... if not THE most important games of the season. 

    This is not complicated... it was a ridiculous decision. 

    16 minutes ago, Kevin Sheehan said:

    First base was open. Why not walk Duran and let the kid face the righty? Seems like common sense to me

    It is frowned upon (for good reason) to walk a guy to bring the go-ahead run to the plate. That's what Irvin did and it went poorly for him.

    11 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

    Go to your late inning pitcher in the 4th inning (Sands, Jax, Duran) which will force you to use one of your other crappy options in the late innings if the move is successful

    Why does going to a better pitcher in the 5th FORCE you to use a worse pitcher in late innings? There's nothing to say he couldn't use precisely those 3 pitchers to get 13 outs. 

    And even if not, why is that necessarily bad? For example, let's say he went to Varland against the 7-8-9 hitters in the 7th. Is that a poor utilization of bullpen pitchers? 

    3 hours ago, ashbury said:

    The third-time-through logic has this one missing piece: Zebby's OPS-against is even worse the first time through (.862) and second time (.904) than the third (.813).  If you were not going to let him continue a third time through, due to the numbers, then those numbers say you shouldn't have started him in the first place.  Given this paradox, I'd be inclined to give less credence to the small sample of data to work with

    I think this is fair but it's more fair to say "we have no idea what Zebby's numbers the third time through the order actually are." I agree, probably leave him in, partially because worst case you get a home run that ties, and then maybe you get one of your better (or even so-so but not Cole Irvin) arms against the righties and pray your hitters do anything.

    1 minute ago, NYCTK said:

    Why does going to a better pitcher in the 5th FORCE you to use a worse pitcher in late innings? There's nothing to say he couldn't use precisely those 3 pitchers to get 13 outs. 

    Those 3 pitchers usually get 9 outs. It is quite unlikely they can each go more than one inning and keep the game scoreless. In fact, Sands was terrible in his chance to keep the game close, so with the benefit of seeing what happened in the game he was an awful choice.

    Do you think Jax and Duran could get 13 outs and keep the Red Sox off the board? Are you prepared to do ask Jax and Duran to do that every game from here on out? What happens if either one gets injured because you're suddenly asking them to pitch multiple innings at the end of the season? Would you defend Rocco's decision to throw away an entire future season due to injury rehab in a desperate move to try to win this one game against the Red Sox?

    8 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

    Those 3 pitchers usually get 9 outs.

    In a playoff push especially, RP are often asked to extend themselves a little bit. Every single one of them had the day off before, and every single one had the day off after. It's not too much to ask them to get 5 or 6 outs instead of 3.

    Again, see the Mets last night. They used 3 RP to get 15 outs. And ironically the one that didn't work more than 1 inning was the one that usually does. 

    To quote Mets manager Carlos Mendoza "We’ve been protecting him the whole year and now it’s big boy time." 

    “With the off day tomorrow, going in there, I knew I was going to be aggressive. With the top of the lineup (and) their best hitters again, I felt like [he] was the right match up. This time of year, you have to expect it." 

    40 minutes ago, Peter Labuza said:

    I think this is fair but it's more fair to say "we have no idea what Zebby's numbers the third time through the order actually are."

    That's more or less a restatement of what I thought I was trying to say.  I don't know what his third-time-through numbers "really" are, but I'm feeling that OPS=.813 isn't it.  I do think that third-time-through is a concept best left to more capable statisticians than myself, because it involves conditional probability that is tough to sift through - there is a built-in bias to the numbers collected, for one thing that (usually) you only get to face a batter for a third time if you're having a pretty good game, but if you're having a REALLY good game, maybe the effect isn't as big.  Across the majors, 1st/2nd/3rd time is a measurable difference but not as dramatic as people sometimes think - but again there is that bias to remember.

    Let me throw in an additional thought.  The Twins beat Cleveland 4-1 on September 17, the one win we had in that important series.  Zebby was the starting pitcher in that one too, but he didn't get the win because he got taken out with 2 gone in the 5th inning, after giving up a base runner.  Sound familiar? A lefty, Gimenez, was coming to the plate.  Sound really familiar? Which reliever came in?  Irvin.  Woah, deja vu all over again.  What was the result?  A groundout.  Cole Sands entered the game to begin the next inning, and did well.  History doesn't always repeat itself, but sometimes it tries and fails.  Big difference being that Duran's having a lot better season at the plate than Gimenez.

    Did you just actually write an article saying a discarded non-performer with an ERA of nearly 10 (and worse in Fenway specifically) was the smart thing to do?

    I am speechless.  I would GLADLY keep the ball in Zebby’s hands over Irvin.  Irvin shouldn’t even be on the team.  




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...