Riverbrian

Yep and it's harder to plug any hole in your 13 staff if you purposely limit yourself to needing X amount of this and X amount of this. You wouldn't have to choose Chi Chi Gonzalez over Moran (for example) to keep the sanctity of a 5 man rotation intact. You wouldn't have to choose Joe Smith over Devin Smeltzer for example. Who are your best 13 guys to hang a zero and how long can they go?

I agree... forecasting will always play a role but I got to think that the limited availability crunches that occur would be lessened because you have given yourself more options with everyone a potential option at any point in the game. I was actually running over similar scenarios in my head while watching the Wild Game last night, they gave up 7 goals so I might as well think of something else. I got myself stuck on the routine between starts and the possibility of needing Sonny Gray for 6 one game and 1 inning the next appearance with a different rest schedule required. How valuable is that routine? Do relievers have a Routine? BTW... Sonny Gray didn't get angry in my scenarios. Perhaps you should try a different approach to make sure he understands. In my imaginary hypotheticals, Sonny Gray was always professional because I made sure that he understood the reasoning behind everything. ?

I hear what you are saying, but again that just means you need all good or better pitchers. The reason Bundy threw 140 innings wasn't because Duran only threw 67.2, it was because the Twins thought he was better than Pagan, Thielbar, Megill, Duffey, Moan, Cotton, Sands, Smith , Smeltzer and such pitching more innings on top of Ober, Winder, Ryan, Gray and Mahle's injuries same with why Archer pitched 102 innings. In my opinion, Bundy threw 140 innings because: A- Remained Healthy B- The Starters around him did not remain healthy C- He couldn't be stashed in the minors without losing him D- We Needed every inch of starting pitch depth we could muster to maintain the rotation. E- He wasn't amazing but he wasn't the worst thing on earth. F- The Twins like every other team adheres to the concept of a starting rotation. I believe that's why he threw 140 innings. I don't think you can compare him to the relievers on your list because those are two separate positions in the traditional format. You could compare him to Smeltzer and Sands. I believe Smeltzer was the better pitcher when compared to Bundy and Archer but Smelter could be stashed in the minors for depth, while Bundy and Archer could not. I think we can agree Duran should pitch more innings than last year but if that is because he is pitching less games and more innings, that means they need other bullpen members close to as good as him to finish games or come in a save an inning, correct? You always need complimentary talent. It's no different if you let Scherzer throw 8 innings, he will have to rest for 5 days and others have to perform decently while he is unavailable. You have a better chance of surrounding him with complimentary talent if you can pick from all options. For example if the Plan is Ryan to start a game and go 6 and Duran is set to pitch the last 3 innings, what do they go if Twins go way up or way down are you going to pitch Duran in a game like that, just because or do you save him and then what happens when he hasn't pitched in days? I'd hate to see anything that scripted. That's where I'd throw that Bundy fella. ? What you are describing is already happening and has been happening for years. Managers adjust based on the situation. The difference is... if you remove the hard designation of roles. The manager now has 12 options to work with instead of potentially only 8. Throw all our pitchers in a pile and here are potentially the best 13 potential pitchers from the current roster for next year. Ryan, Gray, Ober, Maeda, Mahle, Paddack, Winder, Duran, Lopez, Jax, Thielbar, Fulmer. Pagan. Disclaimer: Pagan wouldn't be my choice but I know he will be back. If you stick with the traditional set up with a 5 man rotation. 2 of Ryan, Gray, Ober, Maeda, Mahle, Paddack and Winder will have to start in AAA and be replaced by? I don't know but probably someone like Joe Smith who isn't as good just to pinch out an inning every once in awhile just to keep the traditional structure churning along. Remove the roles and just call those 13 pitchers "pitchers" and utilize them when needed at any point in the game and give those who are pitching the best more innings. You have a better chance of building a staff of 13 arms who can effectively pitch and hanging zero's in more of those 1437 innings. They are all Bullpen, They are all eligible to pitch the first inning, they are all potential closers.

Thank You for the topic. I don't believe this can happen overnight because as I mentioned before the current compensation structure and the fact that it would take an incredible amount of guts to implement. Doing something radically different is risky when it comes to job security, because it could go wrong. Wrong is much more explainable when you stay within the lines. An owner would have to be the one who clears the path.

Isn't that what every team has been trying to do since the beginning? Not in Practice. A below average starter (traditional designation) throws more innings than an above average reliever (traditional designation). 140 Innings from a 4.89 ERA and 60 innings from a 1.86 ERA is backwards. Then the solution is to not have bad or decent pitchers just good ones? correct? That is always what teams strive for but it is really hard to accomplish especially when you shackle yourself to the traditional construct of having 5 guys in a rotation regardless of talent level. Teams are really scraping bottom to keep the rotation alive. You have a better chance of having 13 good pitchers on your roster if take your pile of pitchers, remove the designations and choose the best 13 and maximize the usage of your very best. An innings eater starter (traditional designation) with a 4.89 ERA who stays in the rotation for rotation continuity may not make the best 13 pitchers on your staff and if he does... you still want to throw him less. Less Bundy... More Duran but this concept will be hard to grasp as long as you continue to think of Bundy as a starter who throws 4 or 5 or 6 innings a pop and Duran as a reliever who throws 1 inning each time. You have to stop putting pitchers in starter and reliever boxes to open up the doors to consider it. In your example you are saying more Duran and less Bundy, but that doesn't make sense because everybody knew that Duran was going to be limited this year based on throwing 16 innings since 2019. You need to be comparing Bundy to the other pitchers that pitched for the Twins this year. Duran and Bundy are being used by me for example purposes. I use Duran because he was lights out. I chose Bundy because he was the closest to that innings eater that I'm trying to eliminate. The example I'm trying to illustrate is that Bundy... the lesser pitcher threw twice as many innings as the guy who was knocking them down. There is a difference between limiting Duran to 60 IP (due to 16IP since 2019) to managing his workload from a health perspective and limiting his workload because you are utilizing him in standard bullpen formation. 60 IP is typical bullpen output through history and that is where he landed. If they want to manage his workload for health concerns... OK... Factor that in. But, you should be looking at how to get Duran more innings because he is better than Bundy. To get more innings out of really good current relief pitchers means pitching more innings and less outings and prep for that, which means now you still need other really good pitchers to fill that void (the games previous pitcher is no longer pitching in) Yes... you will have to change from the way things were done before. The rest pattern would have to adjust to make that happen and it won't happen if you hang on to 5 days rest for a starter and 1 day rest for a reliever and don't consider the considerable middle ground in between. Let's go back to Duran... What would it take to get him from 60 to 120 innings next year assuming health all year long? 3 IP every 4 days is the answer. How you reach that number, 3 in one burst or spread or 2 sets of 2IP is fluid. Keep it fluid. It's mathematically possible if you just remove the conventional designations and usage patterns associated with those starter/reliever designations. Yes... you could knock Duran out for a few days because he stayed in a game for awhile. You have days when pitchers are unavailable in today's format and there will be times when pitchers are unavailable with my suggestion. Backfilling will always be part of the pitching equation but you will be in better shape for those unavailable moments because your staff is better with your best 13 pitchers to choose from. Which goes back to the Scherzer example how would you ever develop a pitcher like him if you are prepping an organization to fill the innings that way you are suggesting? That one is easy. You let good pitchers pitch as many innings as they effectively can. If you are developing a Scherzer, get out of his way. Keep stretching him out. Limiting the work load of Scherzer or Duran is a human decision to limit a pitcher who hangs zeroes and replacing those innings with someone who isn't as good as they are. The reason they are limited? Well... that is done to stay in format.

Where did I say that? Let me tell everyone reading that what you typed isn't close to what I'm saying. If Scherzer or McClanahan are capable of throwing 12 effective innings each utilization... let them. They are Great pitchers and I want more innings from our great (Best) pitchers. If Scherzer and McClanahan can gobble up 437 innings combined of the 1437 needed. That's GOOD. Now you can focus on the remaining 1000 innings with the 11 other pitching slots. Less innings for our lesser pitchers. More Duran... Less Bundy. The concept I'm talking about is only confusing if you try to apply it to traditional designations or what the Twins did this past season. My thoughts have very little to do with what the Twins did with the starting rotation this past season. Please don't meld those two worlds together because it will just further muddy the waters and it's hard enough to get people to see it with past constructs blinding them. How did what I typed express that Scherzer has to throw 3 innings now... like it is some new robotic formula?

I wouldn't tell a Scherzer that he's done after four innings. Scherzer would be one of the best pitchers and therefore throw as many innings as he is capable of throwing. I would limit Bundy or Archer. Increase Duran. I'm not talking about the Twins two times through the order strategy implemented this past season that has people up in arms. Your best pitchers throw MORE innings. It's an objection to the current necessity of an "Innings Eater" to fill those 1437 innings.

Well Said

"Out Getter" is a decent label. I've been talking about this concept for a couple of years now. I just call them pitchers while trying to remove the starter and reliever designations. Get more innings out of your effective relievers and get less innings (or none at all) out of your less effective starters. Disclaimer: I hate having to use "Starter" and "Reliever" as a conventional starting point for understanding while trying describe how their utilization could change in an effort to no longer refer to pitchers as "Starters" or "Relievers". How many innings can each pitcher throw effectively is the question. Once you have that answer, you have 1437 innings to cover, Give the most innings to the your best pitchers based on how many they can throw. How much rest is required for one time through the order (for example). It should be less than five days rest, yet probably more than 1 day rest. I don't know but they have a staff of people who collect data and they have imagination. We can't be that locked in 5 days rest or 1 day rest and very little in between. Pagan throwing as many innings as Duran only makes sense because of traditional usage. Very few of us question it because we have all grown up on this standard. Dylan Bundy throwing twice as many innings as Duran only makes sense because of traditional usage... very few of us question it. However... if you took the static roles and the conventional baggage away it's hard to justify. If you tried to explain it to someone from Mars (or Wyoming)... there is no way you can justify Bundy getting twice as many innings as Duran and certainly no way to justify Duran and Pagan getting an equal amount of innings. That said... The compensation system is going to be a very big hurdle.

It posted itself after I made one entry.

I agree with you. I think you are absolutely right. My suggestion has inherent implementation issues right out of the gate. The current compensation system is set up for the conventional ways. At the arbitration table, saves are compensated at a higher dollar figure than holds. Average starters make more money than elite closers in arb and free agency. While you adjust your team to the new... there will be 29 teams setting the market with the old. Agents are going to demand the closer roles for their clients if you want to sign them because of the compensation disparity. This type of thinking has enemies guarding the door. It's a problem. I don't have the knowledge to fix it... just an utopian idea but one that is worth striving for because there is really no need for the self-induced limitations of the typical pitching structure. I believe it's possible that busting out of it could be advantageous. From my outsiders view (which is worthless because I've never been in the room to understand the room). The implementation issues are almost entirely based around compensation so to overcome that... the club would have to compensate. Innings pitched is the key... Those that throw the most innings would be entitled to higher compensation just like the starters are compensated higher in the traditional way. My way too simple, seed of an idea without nuance rewards your BEST pitchers regardless of designation more innings and therefore higher compensation. There were 1437 innings thrown by the Twins staff this year. Jhoan Duran threw 67.2 of them, Emilio Pagan threw 63 of them. The effectiveness difference between these two is grand canyon sized, yet the traditional structure keeps the utilization comparable. There should be an innings pitched difference between these two pitchers that matches performance. As for the rest required. They are smart people... they can figure that out. As far as I'm concerned it's a blank slate because whatever they are trying to do to keep pitchers healthy is clearly NOT working. As for the fans and attendance issues. I don't believe that is true and if it was true... that demonstration of fickleness would suggest that baseball has bigger issues than this in order to save the sport.

In my opinion... Yes I simply don't care about boxes. I don't need the designations like starter, long reliever, reliever, set up or closer. To me it's simple. I want 13 guys who can pitch Period. Those who pitch better should get more innings. I don't care where they enter a game. Boxes just limit what is possible. If that means stretching those who are currently designated as a reliever to 2 or 3 or 4 innings... do it. If that means someone who is currently designated as a starter enters the game in the 4 inning... do it. I am well past the days of Starters throw 6 and relievers throw 1 inning. It can be any combination necessary and at any point in the game. If Pitcher A who is currently designated as a reliever is better than Pitcher B who is currently designated as a starter... Pitcher A should get more innings because he is better. I realize that this thought is going to be immediately dismissed and disturbing to many. I offer it regardless.

Not to mention there is no guarantee that Gordon will be next year what he was this year. Production fluctuations happen all the time from the first year to the next. The Twins have to add a good OF next year. They have to. Kepler, Gordon, Larnach are not names that you can fill into a space and say: Eureka, we got our guy so let's stop looking. Not to mention the forever cloud of Buxton health. The 5 OF spots on the 26 man next year has to look like this Buxton Good NEW addition Gordon Larnach Kepler The Twins have to add an outfielder this off-season. A good outfielder. Have to.

Here are the 10 outfielders that the Twins tried before they called up Jake Cave on August 2nd and played him 54 out of the final 59 games during a pennant chase. The Orignal 5: Buxton, Kepler, Kirilloff, Celestino, Gordon. Followed by 6. Larnach 7. Garlick 8. Lewis 9. Contreras 10. Beckham We apparently expect a lot from a utility outfielder. Jake Cave went beyond utility, he was option #11 in the outfield this year. Option #11 played in 54 out of 59 games and he led all of our OF'ers in AB's with 164, while producing a .644 OPS during a pennant chase after he was called up on August 2nd. An OPS of .644 is well below average so this isn't your Hollywood story of Option #11 showing up and grabbing a job with both hands as the team carries him off on shoulders. This is the story of option #11 becoming the best you got with a .644 OPS and needing him to carry you home during a pennant chase so desperately that he plays 54 out of 59 games with a .644 OPS. Yet... we expect a lot of a utility OF because we expect Rocco to still win the weak AL Central with option #11 leading the OF in AB's with a .644 OPS. What if you can't find 3 guys that you want to play every day? How well does a player have to perform to hold down that every day job while holding a guy or two on every roster to sporadic sub. What if your 5th Outfielder is better than your 2nd Outfielder. What are the odds that the 3 chosen ones are healthy all year?

Great article. Just think... Jake led the outfielders in AB's during a pennant chase. Jake was our go to guy during a pennant chase. We needed Jake to bring us home during a pennant chase. Just think about that for a while because I'm sure very few would have predicted this in March. I was searching for a way to express the incongruity of needing Jake Cave to lead us during a pennant chase in September. I couldn't figure out how to make this peculiar point without denigrating Jake because that wouldn't be fair to him. The approach you took of praising Jake while pointing directly at the elephant in the room was very well done and fair. First Class

The practice of scapegoating has out lasted almost every baseball manager in history. ?

Which teams?

Obviously a Dry sense of humor on display.

I did and if he is on the roster next year... I will ask for it again and the numbers the OF produced in September is why I was asking. I'd rather know before the trade deadline if he can help us after the deadline. ?

When the wrong call is made... Is it gut? Is it Data? Should there be more gut? Should there be more data? There is a lot that we don't know here... Seems like some know. I wonder how they know.

It wasn't that long ago. We should all still remember what happened. Let's look at what our OF provided for us during a pennant chase. Sorted by AB's in September 95 AB's -- Jake Cave OPS .628 77 AB's -- Gilberto Celestino September OPS .570 43 AB's -- Matt Wallner OPS .798 37 AB's -- Kyle Garlick OPS .270 20 AB's -- Max Kepler OPS .300 272 How About August if we can remember that far back. ? 81 AB's -- Nick Gordon OPS .891 81 AB's -- Max Kepler OPS .505 60 AB's -- GIlberto Celestino .606 53 AB's -- Jake Cave OPS .699 49 AB's -- Byron Buxton OPS .750 The OF killed us. It should be fresh in our memories. If you want to keep a specialist on your roster. You run the risk of needing that specialist in September and I remember it like it was just a month ago.

Some are asking for balance... sounds like a good idea. However... do we know what the current data/gut ratio is?

Whatever data is making the front office believe in him has been trumped by his actual performance which makes most of us not believe. If they are bringing Pagan back... they better right. Those roster spots are gold and should be treated as such. You can't hide anyone in the bullpen in consideration of how many innings the starters are throwing. If they think they can fix him... he better get fixed. I need them completely bullpen serious.

I didn't put a W/L on my thoughts. But, I was very optimistic because I felt we had finally achieved decent Starting pitching depth. Just did not expect the offense to crater like it did down the stretch run. It's a lot to be needing Cave, Celestino, Kepler to bring you home. I did not see that coming. I will be optimistic once again next year. I've already decided.

According to the bullpen usage chart. Rocco should have lots of fresh arms ready to go today. ?