Riverbrian

This is a great post and I won't argue with any of the great points you are making other than saying. Change is always hard (most people complain if you move the flyswatter from its normal location) but change is also necessary. You have hit the nail on the head, There are many opposing forces blocking the path to what I'm talking about. Road Blocks and Speed Bumps from tradition to compensation stand in the way. If it doesn't work... people will be lined up around the block just to say I told you so and jobs will be lost. The safe move is just to do what everybody has done for decades and carry on with a faulty system. It takes real courage and fortitude to break through the wall. I can also construct a model like you suggest and know that real life will change it in an instant. Mike Tyson once said "everybody has a plan until you get punched in the mouth". However... the same goes for a 5 man rotation and when you say that it works... it really doesn't because there isn't enough starting pitching to go around. The Harvard guys in the front offices have been looking at the same data for years now. They see reports that pitchers who throw complete games are much more likely to have a stint on the D.L. Pitchers are routinely hitting upper 90's and it isn't just the bullpen guys anymore.. The medical guys probably know that the human body has limits and those limits are manifesting with Tommy John's and other issues. They see data that says that pitchers are less effective the 2nd and 3rd time through an order and they are looking at combined ERA's over 5.00 in the 4th and 5th spots in the rotation. Strasburg has been shut down in a pennant chase to manage his workload, pitch counts are being posted on the television screen so we can play along at home. What do we have to counter all of this? We'd like 5 guys to throw the bulk of the innings, stay healthy and get everybody out and we are willing to throw James Shields for 200 innings to force it. I agree that we have to work with pitchers to help them last longer, I have no idea but I assume that this is already something they are doing and have been doing for awhile because they've been locked into the 5 starter business model for decades. What do we get from the attempts to get pitchers to last longer? Pitch counts and increased bullpen usage. Even World Series champions (The Royals) on the strength of a killer bullpen. I don't know the answer... but I believe it starts with throwing out the old and trying something new. That could begin by stretching out the relievers, more long relievers if you will . But again... I don't know the answer and I admit that. The Rays changed it all last year and we just hired from the Rays organization so I'm hoping that it gets interesting. It's not the opener concept... the Rays reallocated the usage and won a lot of games without traditional starting pitching. Anyways... Great post and I appreciate the honest discussion.

You're not confused Jim. The whole purpose of the changes is to increase the chances of winning. Otherwise you don't consider it and you know that. Trying to run traditionally is lowering the chances of winning. Compensation is an issue... It's a big issue. The 5 man rotation is baked into the system, there is going to be resistance and money is going to be a big part of that resistance. However... Mr. Brooks is right. The goal is to win games. The current system is going to have to adjust.

Space and Time is the key to everything. The QB at Eastern Illinois can complete a pass in the NFL if given enough time. If they are coming up the middle (they were coming up the middle) swing it outside until they have to adjust. Hats off to the Bears... They beat us.

Those guys exist. Unfortunately, they haven't been allowed to exist. MLB teams draft players who can do both and then decide if they will be a pitcher or position player and then they do one or the other. We've had players who were designated a position player... struggle and then try to reinvent themselves as a pitcher and vice versa but until Ohtani came along nobody was allowed to do both. Ohtani is obviously special but he isn't that special. Nobody will be able to convince me that Ohtani was the only one. I believe multiple players would have been here before Ohtani... if they would have allowed it.

Two weeks younger

That depends. How badly does it not work out? Team ERA rise upward? It triggers a Lake Superior Tsunami that levels Duluth?

On that we agree. Up in North Dakota a 20 degree temperature doesn't mean much by itself. When you add in wind speeds, that's when you really start getting a sense if you need a coat.

That's fair. I'm saying that I have no idea but I find his skill set interesting enough to see if it blossoms into something with more AB's and I don't believe he's had enough chances to show what he could or can't be. I don't have this down to a science either but I'm interested. However, If he can only play 1B, He'd have to hit at an extraordinary level to survive.

I'm not knocking the skilled staff. They know more about baseball than I do... but let's be honest... it's a hard job and the margins are thin, and the production level rises and falls. Bottom line... they are frequently wrong. If they weren't sometimes wrong... David Ortiz would be in the hall of fame as a Minnesota Twin. I'm not knocking them for it... I'm recognizing the difficulty of the assignment and pointing out the reality of mistakes being made often. I trust that they have advanced data that is not available to me... I trust them to use that data to staff the 25 and 40 man rosters and make decisions with as much knowledge as humanly possible. However... once the ball is hurled toward the plate, the paradigm shifts and if a player is playing well... get out of his way. I'm not saying that Kepler should be tossed aside and I don't believe Cave should be tossed aside either. I'm saying let the best man win and last year the best man was Cave. Nobody is going to convince me that Kepler is better because he is supposed to be better.... If Kepler is supposed to be better... Please make him show it. He's had a few major league AB"s by now. The list is lengthy... Jose Ramirez wasn't supposed to be better,, JD Martinez wasn't supposed to be better, Tommy Pham wasn't supposed to be better, Matt Moore was supposed to be amazing. Solar and Alex Gordon were supposed to rule the world. The list goes on and on. The skilled staff has burned the last ounce of any trust I had that they got this thing down pat... They don't and the reason is because sometimes the players have something to say about it. Otherwise I wouldn't be standing here tapping my foot waiting for Sano and Buxton to be real. If the skilled staff is looking at someone out producing someone else and saying that he shouldn't be out producing, just to go with the guy who is being out produced. They deserve their fate... but I as a fan do not and last year was the last year I will tolerate this fundamental, easy to fix, error. A good small sample size deserves a larger sample size. If the skilled staff doesn't allow it because they know better they will lose by their own hand and deserve their fate.

I don't know if Austin can play a passable OF or not and I'm going to assume you don't either. However, Making the assumption that he is one-dimensional and assuming that it is highly unlikely that he can't play the OF based on the Yankees moving him to 1B is dangerous. The Yankees had an outfield surplus and a gaping hole at 1B. I don't know if that's why the Yankees moved him from OF to 1B but... the explanation is extremely plausible and plausible enough to doubt that he was moved because he was terrible in the OF. I'd think it would be safer ground to simply wonder why he couldn't beat Bird for the 1B job. And... I know I'm not trusting the Twins to make a capable assessment after watching them stiffly deploy playing time over the years. I agree with the last two paragraphs you type... and therefore... If Austin can play some OF... it would be insane to throw that away. If Rosario could play 2B... it would be insane to throw that away... If Castellanos can play 3B... it would be insane to throw that away. But teams throw flexibility away all the time for stability or consistency and the shrinking pitching staffs are working against them. Starters can't just trot out to the same position every day. Utility guys don't have to be only guys who didn't win a starting job and then get shackled to one position. Just stop the madness. Starters can move to different positions and still be starters... See Kris Bryant, See Cody Bellinger. When Adrianza gets a chance to play. Polanco could move to 2B so Adrianza could play SS instead of Adrianza moving to 2B and Polanco playing SS. The Twins have a long history of this kind of crap.

I agree with you 100% about small sample sizes. But... have we reached critical mass with Max Kepler? Isn't it fair to say that Max hasn't earned a starting job? And doesn't the small sample size earn a chance to become a bigger sample size. Saying it's a small sample size, dismissing and moving on from the small sample size will only kill the small sample size and not allow it to become critical mass/stable data. LA Vikes is right. Max has to start singing for his supper. Personally I'd use the options and start Cave in Rochester but he's earned the right to challenge Kepler for the job.

Make him be a one dimensional 1B only type and you will kill him and his career. If he can play OF... you have given him a chance to help you and a chance to prolong his career. He was an OF in the Yankees minor league system. I won't pretend to know the circumstances but I know that there is always circumstance.

Team context will dictate the answer. In the Twins case... we have extra starters hanging around. So yeah... on paper... you can try to roll with a 12 man pitching staff. In the Rays case... they had Blake Snell as the only starter for a long stretch. They are going to need 13 pitchers to get through the season. The Rays context would be more typical for most teams because starters are the hardest thing to find so staffs would naturally evolve to 13. But Yeah... The Twins... they could try to get it done with 12 because they have Gibson, Odorizzi, Berrios, Pineda, Mejia, Stewart, Gonsalves, Romero and DeJong.

Resistance to change comes in many forms. Sometimes the resistance is just simple comfort zone resistance that will evolve away over time. But, what we are talking about here is something that is baked deep into the walls, nooks and crannies. As long as Dellin Betances loses his Arb case because of USAGE, it will force players to want traditional saves, wins, all those things that the Arbitrators attach dollar signs to. As long as the press, fans and social media stays around to slap anybody who steps out of the box with something new (like an opener)... it just keeps James Shields on the mound for 200 plus innings... trapped on the Ferris wheel.

It won't go away. If you have Max Scherzer and he can throw 220 great innings. You will let him throw 220 great innings. But... here's a question... Does Max enter the game in the 1st inning every time? Probably... but I bring that up to point out how robotic baseball has become and this locked in 5 man rotation routine that managers just blindly faithfully execute has led to 4th and 5th spots in that rotation producing 180 plus innings of 6.00 ERA or worse and the managers just keep going like they are trapped on a Ferris Wheel. You let Scherzer throw 220 innings but you really shouldn't be giving Shields 204 innings. Get out of the box... get off the Ferris Wheel.

If you have a guy who is good for 75 and not good after that and you knew that. Why wouldn’t you take the 75 good. The only reason you wouldn’t is if you cling to 100 or nothing. Yes you reconfigure your staff. Reconfigure it all.

Great Topic. This is what I’ve been talking about. For decades... Everyone has to fit in a box. Starters throw 100 pitches... relievers throw 25. Smash that box. Relievers can throw more than 1 inning and starters can throw less than 5. There is no reason to force something that isn’t working just to remain in an old box. And we don’t have to create a new box to lock pitchers into either. Such as stacking Odorizzi and Mejia together. Get 13 pitchers and give the ball to your best performers more often. If Odorizzi has a 75 pitch shelf life and it’s been consistent. Why would you keep trying to get 25 more pitches out of him. The only reason you would do that is because of the decades old box that requires a starter to go 100 and relievers go 25. You want a new plan to incorporate what Jorganswest is smartly suggesting. You can start by removing the Starter and reliever labels. Just call them pitchers and simply smash the box. A 5 man starting rotation. That’s for teams who have 5 guys to rotate and that’s like a 3 teams.

Rosario playing occasional infield would fulfill a dream of mine so it’s alright with me but... I don’t know if he can. If he can it’s a no-brainer in my opinion. Same goes with Austin in the OF. Which again leads to the question. Why did we not see Austin in the OF in September or August? Why waste time on a short-timer like Forsythe. Rosario could of taken some reps at 2B. It takes just a tiny amount of foresight to see that Austin would either be pushed to the OF or out the door. I know many are fine with the door but nobody knows what Austin is yet.

1. Think 13 Pitchers. All the data is going to be jumping off the page to get less innings out of starters and this will require a bigger pen. 2. Therefore one less position player plus a full time DH and two catchers minimum and you are down to 1 extra infielder and 1 extra outfielder. Everybody needs to think about those two things.

Nelson is a great name for a Minnesotan!

These type of assumptions appear frequently enough on TD that I feel a need to correct it each time. I can't think of a single discussion on TD that didn't have two sides. Creating a combined voice on any topic is impossible. Placing that combined voice on one side of topic and then claiming contradiction on the other side of a topic with another falsly created combined voice is pointless because... in the end... you'd have to ignore the opposition just to make it happen. Alright... Carry on All.

I have no problem stashing Astudillo in Rochester. There is a very small chance our catchers avoid the DL. I’m also OK giving Austin the 4th OF job and stashing Cave in AAA as well. I’m also Ok with the Cruz signing because he will provide a boost but I’m insistent on a handcuff move with this to upgrade Adrianza because Cruz will force Adrianza to backup Sano and we can’t gaurentee his health or performance. So OK... Cruz is signed... go get Beckham or someone who can backup all 3 infield spots with some pop. Otherwise we give back the gains with a Sano issue.

It probably is semantics. You will end up with Starters and a Bench based on play but the front office shouldn't be staffing the roster (in the off-season) saying this guy is a starter... now let's go get some bench guys because you'll end up with Morrison playing every day while LaMarre wastes a precious roster spot. I also understand that not everybody plays like Trout and I understand that Rosario is probably going to play every day... but what do you do... if Rosario is hitting. 180 in June. Does he still play every day? If the front office believes that Adrianza can compete with Polanco and Schoop for playing time, be an adequate replacement for either of them... Then I fully support the front office and their belief in Adrianza. If the front office signed Adrianza because he will only play X amount of games and he is good enough for that amount only. They have already blown it. If the front office didn't try to trade for Profar because they thought Adrianza is better... I fully support the front office. If the front office didn't try to trade for Profar because they have Schoop and Polanco with Adrianza to play X amount of games and the manager could never figure out what to do with Schoop, Polanco and Profar on the same roster. They have already blown it. I don't know the answer to how the front office feels but I will know after context is formed around Adrianza and watching how he is deployed. You mention a "13 man playing roster". I think you and I need to be ready for "12". I'm pretty sure that the front office is looking at analytics that make some pretty strong suggestions that fly in the face of past baseball standard pitching usage. I'm willing to bet, they have data that suggests that starters shouldn't go as long as they do for both Health and Performance reasons... I.E. Increased injury risk correlation with increased innings, numbers getting progressively worse each time through the order. These things will point to 13 pitchers on the roster. You mention Danny Santana in another post. Danny Santana is an example of so many things. Danny Santana was never really utility. Danny Santana was consistently one or the other, static at either SS or CF. Came up as a SS in 2014, Promptly moved to CF out of necessity because Aaron Hicks crashed and burned without a safety net. Enter Santana as the emergency parachute CF. He performs well and they name him the staring SS in 2015 and he performs horribly, In 2016... He back to the OF still performing bad. Santana is a primary example of how most teams specialize. Starters don't play different positions... Starters start at the same position... period. Santana is also a reason no one should be confident that Cave or Astudillo will repeat or improve their performance in 2019. Santana is an example of forcing a move in the middle of the season by getting caught with your pants down instead of planning for a move, getting a belt to hold your pants up.

I believe they are going to run into walls before breaking through. The analytics are probably telling the new GM types some things that very few want to hear. There will be resistance because the traditional model is burned into the fabric of the game in the form of compensation, coaching, scouting, you name it. Everybody should have been testing the opener and bullpenning in the minors but not everyone did. Everybody should be trying to build their own Andrew Miller or Josh Hader but not everyone is. Everybody should be watching the Dodgers and Cubs but not everyone is. Nobody should throw away a players positional flexibility for consistency at one position but nearly everyone is. Working in Baseball or Working at Starbucks. Everybody resists change.

The concepts employed by the Dodgers and Cubs are even more necessary for the A's and Rays because the A's and Rays can't play in the same financial sandbox. The Dodgers can not only buy it... but they can also develop it cheaply and it makes them bullet proof. I contend that if you can't afford to buy the Marwin's anymore because now everybody wants one... Then you have to build your own. Can Schoop play SS or 3B? Can Austin play OF? Can Rosario play 2B or 3B? Can Kepler play 1B? I don't know... but if they can... Why wouldn't you let them... it increases their value for them and for the organization because they are now valued. Marwin Gonzalez is going to be an excellent barometer of what you are talking about. However... another barometer is already hanging on the garage wall and waiting for some actual baseball barometric pressure... I've been patiently waiting for Brian Dozier to sign so I can directly compare the contract he got with Eduardo Escobar's contract. (I wish Escobar would have waited and played out the market for a true weather check). Granted Dozier is a little older but I believe it is possible that Escobar will get the better contract because of this shift in sensibility. It has been contended by me, that supply and demand can trump actual historical production. I contend that demand for Escobar or Marwin increases by making them options for any team needing a 3B, SS or 2B instead of one single position (plus OF and 1B in the case of Marwin) while supply is still light for a player who can play all those positions.They will be in play for more teams with different needs and so value increases. I also contend because Dozier can only fill a hole at 2B where supply is over running the market... his contract will disappoint him and the year he had in 2019 isn't the main reason why. Look at how difficult is was to trade him the year before. Talented 2B all over the place so nobody needed to pay a high price for him. We lose a Dozier... we stumble across a Schoop who was released by the Brewers because they know they can just throw Shaw over there. When we finally dealt Dozier off... we got it take Forsythe back just to get a Raley. 2B are all over the place and the trade becomes about moving money to get a prospect. The Twins organization needs to realize immediately that playing a 2nd position... increases the value of that player because of the simple laws of supply and demand. The Twins organization needs to realize immediately that locking Brian Dozier into 2B and Trevor Plouffe into 3B didn't help them win games and it cost them value for trade possibilities and it cost Dozier a lot of money and it cost Plouffe a career. If players don't grow in value... you have nothing of decent value to trade and average value to compete with after you can't trade them for anything of value and this is the sharp object that the Twins have been stabbing themselves in the head with for over a decade now and I contend this is why we have been waiting and screaming for the rebuild to be done. It should be obvious to anyone that once a team is out of contention that moving expiring contracts for Farm depth is necessary or the club is standing still... We seem to have a front office moving that direction. It should also be obvious that once a team is out of contention that not playing Austin in the OF is also a form of standing still. Playing Austin in the OF will increase his value to not only the Twins but other teams that may want to give up something for him. Increasing value is GOOD. Locking them into a position where they are just going to get run over by a train is NOT GOOD. I also contend that another barometer of the changing weather should be clear to all by the General Manager and Manager candidates who interviewed for the open jobs. A Cub or Dodger or Ray were either hired or interviewed for every open position.