Mark G

CF wasn't all of it by any means. We had one corner outfielder who started the season there, the second baseman who started the season, and the catcher who started the season. Otherwise there wasn't a player on the field who we expected to play that position regularly on the field.

I don't worry too much; all 3 relievers from today probably won't be with us on Tuesday when the roster goes back to normal. They were just there to eat the bad innings. You think Rocco would have let them throw 42 and 39 pitches otherwise? Having said that, notice I only said I don't worry too much. Bundy.............

Anyone know the news on Urshela? I briefly saw a bit of the game, and saw him get picked off and he appeared hurt. But he appeared to be staying in the game, and I missed the rest.

Third time through the lineup; nothing more, nothing less. It usually takes more than 57 pitches for him to get through the first 2 times so it appears strange that he would be pulled after so few, but pitch count has nothing to do with it. The computer says 3 times through is a no no. Always remember, the plan is 3-6 pitchers a game 162 games a year. And that is never going to change regardless how the starter is doing. At the end of the day, the plan is more important than individual games, so we will always have games like today. A lot of the folks on TD agree with that. Some of us don't. But that pretty much sums up how the team is managed and always will be with this 3 some. Starters have their limits, again, regardless of how they are throwing that day, and no reliever is designated in a role, be that 7th, 8th, 9th, middle innings, or long relief. Entirely mix and match. None of this is my opinion; I have given my opinion on this subject multiple times, and keep getting told the new and better way of playing the game is here and you will like it. What I am saying today is the accumulation of comments made over the years by our big 3 and what their overall plan/outlook is. So if you like analytics, pitch counts, innings limits, no fixed roles, and a season long shuttle bus between here and St. Paul shuffling pitchers, you will defend this management. On the other hand..............either way, no one is going to change their minds. It is what it is and you will like it!

I am not ignoring anything; I simply don't agree. JK isn't just some former player living out his glory days in autograph sessions. He has stayed close to the game for multiple organizations and is in contact with players and coaches on a daily basis. He has forgotten more than the two of us combined will ever know, so when you say you don't think he knows what he is talking about you lose your point right then and there. My point about the lineups was simple; the better teams are better because they are deeper. They can platoon and rest guys against tough pitchers more so than the lesser teams. We aren't as deep, so we need to play our best players more than they do, and play them where they play the best, not in 3,4,or 5 positions all over the field. And when our best players are hurt, you play the best remaining players in their place. When our best are hurt we still do the rotations, rest guys, put in AAA players, etc. etc. etc. The plan does not vary as the players do. And no they don't stick to the lineup consistently, as evidenced by 45 different lineups in 49 games. And that has been the pattern since '19 in his first year, so I have to believe it is a FO thing as well. I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, but if I have to pick who I listen to, JK or virtually anyone here (myself included), that isn't even a thought process. And going back over the years he is far from the only former player (and hall of famer) who has said similar things. They all do it this way simply is not a reason; it is cover. 30 different rosters and pitching staffs all doing things the same? On what planet does that make sense? Not every pitcher needs a pitch count. Not every player needs as many "days off" (and DHing other days) as we give them. Others do. And every team has a different number of each. Group think is a cop out. It is just rare for a JK to say it out loud; don't think there aren't others. Thanks for the debate; I always appreciate it.

You might have defeated your own point when you used the 2 best teams in baseball right now as examples. The problem with group think, is not every one of the group is equal, and our 7 different lineups just aren't the Dodger's 7 lineups; we have to use our best players far more often. We don't, because "the way the game is managed today" (seems that is all I hear these days) is more important than putting your best lineup on the field. At least to these 3 (and maybe more like them in the league). Doesn't make it wise.

It doesn't matter if I agree; the trip down memory lane was well worth it (although you left out "and the air was dry") Loved it.

As our friend Yogi so famously said (or was reported to say) "baseball is 90% mental; the other half is physical". The mental part of the game is preparation and players prepare in their own way. But they have to know what to prepare for, and not knowing until the last minute if they are playing, where they are playing, where they are batting, and when they will (or not) be pitching makes that more than a little difficult. That may be at least a part of why we look lost at times.

And scary at the same time. They are 15-12 since May 4th and all but 6 of the 27 games were against Oakland, Baltimore, KC, and Detroit. Just think of the lead they could have built.

Thank you. And thank Jim for me. I no longer feel all alone.

Going back to Tuesday, we haven't scored an earned run in 24 innings. Ouch.

You know, I was listening to an economist on one of the business channels a few months back, and he was asked why the stock market was so much more volatile recently with such large swings up and down. He explained that the large traders, hedge funds, pension plans, billionaires, etc., all did it by computer now. So when a trend starts either buying or selling the computer will pick up on it and join in, so as not to get left out of the trend. A sort of group think in stock trading. Now sometimes that would work out for the best, and sometimes not, hence the huge swings from day to day. My long winded point is that just because everyone follows a trend doesn't always make it a good trend. Each staff is different, and should be handled differently. This is one area where group think can be counter productive. When you find a horse, ride him, and the goal should be a stable of horses, not a barn full of long relievers.

You had me all the way until bullet point 2. Doesn't 2 pretty much cancel out 1? And if you accomplished 1, why would you need 2? I am a 1 man all the way. If we ever do another roster expansion, have it be for a bigger and more flexible bench, not a bullpen full of pitchers that otherwise would still be in the minors.

So, can I officially go back to 2-6 again? I was using a couple of factors in that figure; first, the fact they were below .500 when we played them and have been below most of the season from there as well. Two, I was referring to teams that clearly and consistently have winning records and are considered winning teams. As of today, and throughout the first part of the season, Chicago just hasn't shown that yet. Hence the position on the quality of the competition. And while it is great they have won 30 this early, the quality of the competition, again, makes one wonder how good that record really is. Time will tell, and by August we will have a much better grasp on how good we really are. But for now, we have played 25 games against below .400 teams and 33 total against. .420 and below. And only 8 against teams that, at this point (Chicago up in the air right now), are legitimate playoff caliber contenders. How can that possibly give us a gauge on how we stack up against the playoff caliber teams, or if we are truly in that category? I know the double header is just a blip on the screen, but Detroit threw 8 pitchers at us and 7 of them combined to throw 13 innings of no earned runs. If Detroit's pitching was that good, would they be below .400 again this year? I am just saying I have no idea how good we are, and how good the "plan" is; in the FO, in the way lineups are put out, and in the way the BP is used. As I have been known to say, stay tuned.

That means you can never rest Correa.

I don't want to be a buzz kill here, but there is no way to know if there is a great team in Minneapolis this year until we stop playing teams below the .400 win percentage line. A playoff berth may very well be a reasonable expectation, but only because we have the advantage of playing 76 games against lower level, and even bottom level competition. I am not worried about Detroit; the 9 games after that will tell more. Stay tuned.

I can't argue with a word you just said...........and that scares me. the 7-8 names you bring up are a pretty large core of the team we put together to compete this year. If all of those go, or most of them, what does that say about this year? Was it just a transitional year to better things, or was it an out and out failure? If they do overachieve, is that a good thing, or just luck? And if they flounder, do we give the FO a mulligan and look at next year as the year we were supposed to win all along? Remember, '18, '19, and '20 were supposed to be the building of a core years. '18 didn't pan out, '19 overachieved quite a bit, '20 we will never know about, and '21, when things were supposed to begin to crest was a flop. Are we still building, or was this the team? Or next year? We have all the potential in the world, but doesn't almost every team? The difference between the winners and losers is the combination of potential and proven; up and comers who will make it, and free agents who already have. Have we done that? And when will we know? I know this is a BP article, but it seems to exemplify the team as a whole in how it was constructed and what it was expected to do. We can only hope it holds up for another 113 games, and I wish them the best.

I have always believed that taking a college pitcher is better not only because of the seasoning he has, but because if a pitcher is injury prone it will usually show up in his younger years, either in the minors or in college. If a pitcher shows durability as well as talent it would behoove an organization to invest time and money into that known commodity, or at least as known as it can be. I also have always believed that when said organization tries to fiddle with the pitcher and try to add velo, as they say, that increases the chance of injury with each mph. An injury free pitcher never seems to stay that way anymore, and there has to be a reason for that. I don't remember if it was Falvey or Levine, but just recently they answered a question about the rash of injuries in pitchers saying today's pitcher is throwing between 96 and 100 miles an hour, which the human body isn't designed to do (slight paraphrasing, but close). And yet we continue to coach it and expect it. A good college pitcher who knows how to pitch (up/down, in/out, changing speeds constantly) doesn't need to throw 98 mph to make it in pro ball. They need to build arm strength to go a much longer season, and find their role in the starting rotation or the BP and develop that role. Doesn't mean you can't use a pick or two on a high school phenom, but overall I prefer a more seasoned arm.

This reminds me of what a supervisor of mine said to me many years ago when things weren't going so well. He scowled and said "we have to have a plan.....we HAVE to have a plan.....I don't even care if it's a GOOD plan!" And off he went. Point being, yes Rocco has a plan. That plan is a rotating use of 3-6 pitchers a game, all 162 games, depending on how the starter is doing that day. And when the starter doesn't do so well it can be more than 6. He uses the BP anywhere from 40 - 50% of the time, counting on the shuttle bus to and from St. Paul to keep arms fresh. And as long as we continue to play teams below the .400 winning percentage line, it will keep us in the hunt, but considering we STILL have only played 8 games against teams that are over .500 (and are 2-6 against them), there is no way to know if it will hold up for another 113 games. Yes, there is a plan.........but is it a good plan? Stay tuned.

Happy birthday, my friend!! In your honor I will only mention Rogers once, in that if we think that trade was a little sketchy (more than a little?), then I can only imagine what would be discussed if we dropped Thielbar, Pagan, and Duffy for a bunch of minor leaguers. That would be one gamble that had REALLY better work, or we all know what would hit the fan. Not to mention how it would close out the San Diego trade (I didn't say anyone's name) with Paddock and Pagan both gone, albeit for different reasons. My personal belief is that if Christmas can come in July in half this countries sales, why can't the July trade deadline come in June and start the bidding early on a couple of names we think might be on the market eventually anyway? Who says we have to wait for the rush hour on trades? The early bird.................. Again, Happy Birthday!!

The reason I like this site so much is it has so many different viewpoints and ideas. I love the jokes (I tell one or two myself now and then), I love the debates (I have had a few of those myself ), and more than anything else, I love the civility. We have never been in complete agreement on anything, and probably never will be, but if there is one subject we should at least have a super majority on is injuries. I have watched this team for 55 years and I have literally never seen anything like this. Again, we are all going to have our individual takes on why they keep occurring, but no one can dispute they keep on occurring, and in numbers that are surreal. My gut tells me that it is the new way the game is managed; the less a player plays and stays in his routine the more susceptible he is to hurting himself because it isn't pure instinct anymore. Our players play multiple positions they have to think about too much, and the pitchers overextend on every pitch until they feel something twinge, which means, of course, they have to be shut down on the spot; no building arm strength to overcome the smaller pains. Players today get injured just throwing, running, and batting; in other words, playing baseball, and it doesn't have to be this way. I know I can't prove a negative, so to speak, but players need to play every day and pitchers need to stretch out and build arm strength. The old ways weren't always the wrong wrong ways. I have never seen IL's like this. If I am wrong, give me the stats. Again, that is why I am on this site.

Sure, you took them all too.

You know, I was born and raised in St. Paul, and we have always had a sort of mini rivalry with Minneapolis. We finally got our own team, and what does Minneapolis do? They make the Saints a Twins MLB team, and steal all of our best players. What do you all have against St. Paul? Are you still mad the Wild aren't all yours? Give us a break, guys, and let us keep Lewis and Kirilloff for a while; we have an underrated first baseman you can have as a trade. What do you say? The FO will listen to you. Please?

Oh, let's face it; he will have to come up at some point and so may others. 24 pitchers have stepped on the mound so far this year and it isn't even June. This team goes through pitchers more often than I spill beer on my shirt. It feels like the old radio show "clear the airwaves, clear all the airwaves for the big broadcast", only in our case it is clear the 40 man, clear the entire 40 man for the IL broadcast. Can't wait to see which phenom gets the next cup of coffee (as they used to say).

Point noted. I will reserve my thoughts on our record, seeing we have played 8 out of 47 games against any playoff potential teams (Chicago not withstanding, being .500 right now) that are over .500 and we are 2-6 against them. Look me up in July when we have played some real competition. I will close by lamenting that the massive change in organizational direction back in '17 and '18 was supposed to elevate us from the strictly human element and make the decisions better by having better data behind them. I, and others (though maybe not a majority) don't see an improvement in the organization. I only see us asking less and less out of our players, more and more injuries as we baby them, and a revolving door that the average fan can't keep up with. If that is the wave of the future, we may be in more trouble than we know. Love the talk.